SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Eleanor Norrie
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Please come to order. We will begin this evening's proceedings with the singing of O Canada. I would ask Ms. Kiley O'Neill, please, to lead us in the singing.
[The national anthem was sung by Ms. Kiley O'Neill.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. O'Neill is a Dalhousie medical student and I want to thank her very much for being here this evening to lead us in O Canada. Very well done, thank you. (Applause)
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the members of the select committee, I welcome you to this, the ninth in a series of hearings that have been held across the province on the issue of national unity.
Allow me to introduce the members of the select committee to you. We have on my right, Vice-Chairman, Mr. Robert Carruthers, MLA for Hants East; Mr. Ronald Russell, MLA for Hants West; Mr. Ernest Fage, MLA for Cumberland North; the Honourable Wayne Gaudet, Minister of Business and Consumer Services, MLA for Clare; and Mr. John Holm, MLA for Sackville-Cobequid. I am Eleanor Norrie. I am the MLA for Truro-Bible Hill and Chairman of the Select Committee on National Unity.
The purpose of this hearing is to listen to you and to Nova Scotians on their opinions of the Calgary Declaration and the discussion paper that was presented by five national Aboriginal organizations. There are copies available of both pieces of information at the table and as well there are simultaneous translation devices available for any of those who may wish to have the conversations translated. So if you would let the officials in the room know that you would require a translation device, then we will be sure you have it.
Now there are a number of presenters this evening so I will ask the presenters to, as they come forward, state their name and as well, to keep your comments as concise as possible. We would like you to have an opportunity to state your opinions as well as give everybody who wishes to speak the opportunity to do so.
I would ask Patricia Doyle-Bedwell, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women to come forward as our first presenter this evening. As soon as you are comfortable you can state your name and make your presentation.
MS. PATRICIA DOYLE-BEDWELL: My name is Patricia Doyle-Bedwell. I am the Chairman of the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I am also Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law at Dalhousie Law School.
I am very pleased to be here tonight to address the Select Committee on National Unity on behalf of the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Our mandate is to bring forward the concerns of women and to advise government on measures to address these concerns. Our mission, to advance equality, fairness and dignity for all women, is closely connected to the issues which this select committee is considering and I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
I first wish to address the statements contained in the Calgary Declaration. Then I want to make a few comments about the Framework of Principles for a Discussion of Relationships presented by the leaders of the five national Aboriginal organizations in Winnipeg on November 18th.
I believe the Framework for Discussion in the Calgary Declaration should be viewed as an important but incomplete starting point for a vision of Canada and the development of a meaningful basis for unity. If it is viewed as a beginning rather than an end point, however, it would be a declaration which I and other members of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women could feel at home.
First, it is not clear whether these statements are intended to be statements of fact or whether they are intended to be statements of principle towards which and within which our governments commit to work. This is a factor in all the statements but especially in relation to the first three. There are many in Canada who could rightly point out that while the statements towards represent ideals to which we should strive, they do not fully represent the current situation of many Canadians. Further, as the Winnipeg Declaration makes clear, it is inappropriate to view Aboriginal peoples as a gift to make Canada diverse. I even have a hard time saying that. I will come back to that later.
For many women, for Aboriginal peoples, for African Canadians and for poor people, equality of opportunity and equal rights remain elusive. After all, why do we have Human Rights Commissions, Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights, the Charter Challenge
Program or pay equity and employment equity programs if equality has already been achieved?
We are on a journey but we have not yet arrived. Equality, as Judge Rosalie Abella pointed out in her ground-breaking report Equality in Employment, should be viewed as an evolving concept and as a process, a vision or a goal. We cannot conclude that we have already attained equality for everyone. Moreover, as Rosalie Abella also pointed out in her 1984 report, what we tolerated even in the recent past is no longer acceptable. I quote from Judge Abella: "One hundred years ago the role for women was almost exclusively domestic; 50 years ago, some visible minorities were disenfranchised; 25 years ago, native people lacked voice; and 10 years ago, disabled persons were routinely kept dependent. Today, none of these exclusionary assumptions is acceptable.".
Indeed, if we reflect on the situation of women today, 25 years after the publication of the Status of Women Report in 1972, we will readily see that many of the issues women are dealing with today - such as violence, sexual harassment and homophobia - were not even identified as issues by that important Royal Commission. Progress is often slow and difficult. We have made some progress on women's formal, legal equality in the past 25 years but substantive equality, especially economic equality has not been achieved by women. Any way you want to measure it, women today still earn less, have lower incomes, and are more vulnerable to poverty than men. As women in this country are well aware, moving towards equality needs the ongoing commitment at all levels of government.
In the spirit of these remarks, I would propose that Statements 1 and 3 in the Framework for Discussion be reworded as principles that governments are committed to rather than statements of current reality. For example, the first statement could read, all Canadians are equal under the law and are entitled to have equal rights protected by law. Statement 3 could read, Canada is graced by diversity. All Governments will work cooperatively to ensure respect for diversity, tolerance, compassion, equality and equity for all Canadians.
As a basis for unity, we must recognize and commit to equality as a process, a vision that we must continually work towards, as individuals, as communities and as governments. A vision of a better future, a just society, and a commitment to social security and health programs was a motivating and positive force for national unity in the past. It could be so again if certain conditions are met as we move towards a new vision for Canada's economic and social union on the cusp of the 21st Century.
In the current context of restructuring and cutbacks in social programs, Canadians may well wonder whether governments are losing the vision and the commitment to equality that they once had. If that is true, then we are in danger of losing a basis and a vision for unity, a goal for what Canada should be like for the people who make it their home, wherever they live and whatever their social, ethnic, racial or economic background.
The Advisory Council on the Status of Women and many of us who live in Atlantic Canada are concerned that the restructuring of the federation may mean that previous commitments to national unity through equalization to reduce regional disparities in health, education and social services will fall by the wayside. We fear that regional disparities will not only persist but worsen.
Erosion of our health care system, increasing income gaps between rich and poor, continuing and deepening poverty of single mothers and persons with disabilities, the poverty and deprivation of many Aboriginal peoples, both on and off reserves in Canada, these are symptoms of backward rather than forward movement towards equality.
Large differences in the economic opportunities, health and well being of people based on where they live or on discrimination and systemic disadvantage because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, ability or sexual orientation are disruptive of national unity. To quote Judge Abella again, "[Equality] is a concept that seeks to identify and remove, barrier by barrier, discriminatory disadvantages . . .".
Our principles for national unity need to address both provincially based disparities and the differences based on the economic and systemic disadvantages which divide us both as individuals and communities.
We believe that Canadians not only want their governments to work cooperatively and with flexibility and to work together in the delivery of their social programs, they also expect that both federal and provincial governments will make a renewed commitment to work cooperatively to develop sound, culturally and regionally sensitive social policies and programs. This should be done in ways which recognize both the substantive differences which divide us - for example, individual, communal and regional disadvantages or inequalities - and the diversities we must respect - for example, our different cultures, languages, histories and so on.
To borrow from Judge Abella again, "We need to understand that 'equality' does not necessarily mean treating people the same . . . Sometimes equality means treating people the same, despite their differences, and sometimes it means treating them as equals by accommodating their differences.". This statement is as true of groups, communities, provinces and regions as it is of individuals. It is equitable outcomes that are most important.
We agree that respect for diversity and equality underlies unity and that the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law is fundamental to the well-being of Canada. Given Quebec's particular development in history, the Quebec Government clearly does have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada. Quebec and its peoples are important to Canadians, especially to maintaining the uniqueness and well-being of Canada as a nation.
Keeping Quebec within the Confederation is especially important to Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Canadians and we applaud the efforts of the provincial Premiers and their work towards a genuine national unity, inclusive of Quebec. But provincial Premiers also need to recognize and respect the linguistic and cultural heritage of Acadians and other francophone Canadians who live outside Quebec. They must recognize and respect the rights of First Nations, the first of the so-called founding nations. Indeed, if the Declaration is to initiate a process to move Canada towards a better future for everyone, we need a wider vision, we need a paradigm shift.
We need to respect the diversity in Canadian society but at the same time recognize our common values and our shared sense of social purpose. We need solid principles based on equality and equity and new intergovernmental institutions which incorporate these values into a renewed social union. We need governments to commit to accountability, transparency and meaningful citizen engagement and participation for everyone, no matter what their gender, race, language, or social background. If the Calgary Declaration can move governments toward these goals, women may truly be equal partners in the Canada of the 21st Century.
I now wish to take a moment to speak more specifically about Winnipeg's Framework of Principles and about the relationship between First Nations people and the rest of Canada. As a Mi'kmaq women, this has particular importance to me. The Winnipeg Declaration sets out principles for a discussion of the continued relationship between Aboriginal peoples and Canada. I agree that Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 protects our inherent right to self-government. Also, Section 35 protects and affirms the fiduciary relationship which exists between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples. Any rebalancing of Canadian federalism must take into account this fiduciary relationship with the Aboriginal peoples.
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law. Therefore, any treaty or Aboriginal rights must be seen as part of the supreme law of Canada, as these rights are constitutionally protected. The provinces have a role to play, as well, with respect to partnership of Aboriginal people but most importantly, the federal government cannot abdicate its responsibility by offloading Aboriginal concerns to the provinces. Moreover, it is especially important for Canadians to recognize that Aboriginal nations are part of the founding nations of Canada.
With respect to resource management, I agree with the Winnipeg Declaration which says federal, provincial and Aboriginal governments should work together in partnership. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report must be utilized more by the federal and provincial governments. Most importantly, outstanding land claims must be settled. Economic development of Aboriginal communities must be stressed. The Aboriginal peoples must be able to ensure our children have a future, a future in Canada which acknowledges our nations, as founding nations of Canada, and a future which our people will see Canada living up to its treaty and constitutional responsibilities with respect to Aboriginal peoples.
As I said earlier, the most important issue I see here is the settlement of land claims. Only when we, as Aboriginal people, have a resource base, can we move forward. Protection of our cultures and languages must also be paramount. We are not simply Canada's gift of diversity but part of the foundation of this country and this must be respected. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. Doyle-Bedwell for your presentation. It was very well done, I might say. Would you entertain any questions from the committee if they have some questions they wish to put?
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: Sure.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carruthers.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Thank you. I note early in your submission you indicate that you feel Statements 1 and 3 of the Declaration, or the accord . . .
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: Yes, of the Calgary Declaration.
[7:30 p.m.]
MR. CARRUTHERS: . . . really should be shown as principle statements as opposed to the reality of the situation. Do I take from that that the rest of the accord, for instance, Number 2 and the first sentence in Number 7, Number 2 says, "All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.". Number 7 says, "Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions.". Do you consider that those are not statements of principle but do reflect the reality?
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: I think that they also reflect what we hope to achieve.
MR. CARRUTHERS: So it is wider than just Numbers 1 and 3.
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: I look at it, especially from a Mi'kmaq perspective where I think that in terms of Aboriginal self-government, that is still a vision.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Also.
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: Yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Holm.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Yes, thank you very much and thank you very much for the presentation and the very helpful suggestions that were made. I just really have one question because it is one of the issues that I don't think you touched on in your presentation. You talked quite a bit about those values, things that we should be striving for and those things that we value. One of the statements, however, talks about the possible transfer of additional powers to provincial governments and my question really is simply, does the Advisory Council on the Status of Women believe that national standards for those things that we value could be better maintained by having a stronger central government, or have any concerns that by delegating many of those powers to provincial governments that some of those things that we value, or you value, could be placed in more jeopardy?
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: I believe, at least I can speak for some of the Advisory Council members on this, that in a meeting that we had with Advisory Councils from across Canada, one of the things that we noticed and one of the things that we discussed was the lack of national standards, for instance, when the CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan, was taken away and I think that part of the thing that needs to happen is that the federal government has - I guess I believe in a strong central government and that there are strong, national standards but then the provinces be able to develop those things as well as they can within that framework, things that are particular to their province. That is how I look at it.
MR. HOLM: Similar to the kind of things, you can be equal but different and have equity.
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: Yes.
MR. HOLM: But you would like to have the standards.
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: Yes, I think it is really important to have that.
MR. HOLM: Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Russell.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: I would just like to tailgate on Mr. Holm's question. I take it from that that further devolution of federal powers to the provinces would not be looked upon favourably by the council.
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: Well, the concern that I have with the devolution of federal responsibilities to the provinces is that there won't be a corresponding devolution of significant enough money to deal with those things. So, yes, I am very concerned about that. What I see happening, and what I have seen happening even within the Mi'kmaq First Nations is that the federal government seems to want to not only pass on the responsibilities but they don't want to pay and I think that is really a bad position to put provinces in because then you
are getting away from any kind of equality at all in terms of social programs. I believe that one of the things that makes Canada a great country to live in - and I have lived in other countries - and one of the things that I find about Canada is that the social programming is a caring for communities, it is the caring for individuals within that community and I think that that has to start with the federal government and I think this devolution without appropriate financial arrangements is wrong.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fage.
MR. ERNEST FAGE: Thank you very much. Just in reference to Number 6 of the Calgary Declaration, I didn't see any strong reference to it in the report you have given. Is there an opinion about future constitutional amendments given to one province? Should these be given to all provinces? Do you have a comment on that from your association?
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: Well, given the difficulty it is to get constitutional amendments, I can say at this point that we haven't really discussed that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Well, thank you very much for your presentation. I think you pretty well covered the response to the Declaration and it was very well done. Thank you very much.
MS. DOYLE-BEDWELL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for listening to me and in Mi'kmaq wellain to everyone. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci. I would ask Dr. Réal Samson to come forward.
Just before you begin, sir, I would like to draw to the attention of the members in the audience that Mr. Paul MacEwan, MLA for Cape Breton Nova, has joined us at the table this evening. We also have in attendance Members of the Legislative Assembly. While we are representatives of the Legislature chosen to sit on the committee to hear presentations, when we do draft our resolution to go to the House, all members of the House of Assembly will have an opportunity to debate the resolution. So there are a number of members who have attended meetings to hear first-hand some of the presentations and I would like to draw them your attention tonight.
We have with us the Honourable Wayne Adams, Minister of the Environment, member for Preston is in attendance. Would you stand? I don't see him. Thank you, Wayne. The Honourable James Barkhouse, Minister of Fisheries, MLA for Chester-St. Margaret's; Dr. John Hamm, Leader of the Opposition, MLA for Pictou Centre; and Honourable Alan Mitchell, Minister of Justice, MLA for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour. Thank you for coming, all of you.
I would ask you then, sir, to begin your presentation.
M. RÉAL SAMSON: Merci. Membres du comité, mesdames et monsieurs, good evening.
Avant de débuter, je tiens à vous remercier d'avoir accepté d'entendre quelle est ma vision sur la question de l'unité nationale. Ce soir, je ne vous adresse pas la parole uniquement en tant que néo-écossais, mais c'est surtout en tant que président du Collège de l'Acadie que je me prononce ce soir en accord avec les sept énoncés de la déclaration de Calgary.
Le Canada est un vaste pays riche et diversifié de par ses communautés culturelles, l'étendue de sa géographie et le potentiel économique de ses nombreuses régions. À l'échelle mondiale, le Canada est reconnu pour sa capacité d'entraide et de coopération auprès des nations étrangères. Par ailleurs, sur le plan socio-économique, le peuple canadien jouit d'une réputation enviable basée sur son honnêteté et sa débrouillardise, son esprit d'entrepreneurship et sons sens poussé de la démocratie.
Le peuple canadien se caractérise comme étant une immense mosaïque culturelle réunissant des communautés ethniques venues des quatre coins du monde. Au fil des quatre derniers siècles, ces immigrants sont venu au Canada dans l'espoir d'y trouver un monde meilleur et des perspectives d'avenir plus intéressantes pour eux-même et les générations à venir.
Il n'y a pas de doute que la multiplicité des cultures ajoute au cachet de notre nation. Cependant, dans un tout autre ordre d'idées, cette même diversité peut présenter des défis qui ont le potentiel d'ébranler le climat socio-politique sur lequel reposent les bases de notre société. Le Canada entier se trouve présentement dans une situation où il doit définir quels sont les fondements de son appartenance à une entité politique. C'est pourquoi, il est tellement crucial de réitérer l'importance d'accorder à chaque canadien et canadienne l'assurance d'un épanouissement optimal sans égard à son appartenance linguistique.
Le Collège de l'Acadie, en tant que seule institution de formation professionelle et technique de langue française, estime que les sept énoncés contenus dans la déclaration doive être entérinés à part entière par les différentes instances gouvernementales.
Pour sa part, le gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Écosse se soit de saisir l'occasion pour consolider son engagement politique, économique et moral à l'égard des ses minorités. Doit-on rappeler que les acadiens comptent parmi les tout premiers habitants de la Nouvelle-Écosse? Dans la mesure où sa survie est assurée, chaque minorité a le potentiel d'enrichir la province pour le bien de toute la collectivité néo-écossaise.
La Nouvelle-Écosse dispose présentement de trois institutions d'enseignement distinctes dont le mandat consiste à desservir la population d'expression française à la grandeur de la province. La survie de la population acadienne et francophone en terre néo-écossaise dépend de sa capacité d'être éduquée dans sa propre langue d'origine. Le
gouvernement doit continuer à encourager la minorité acadienne et francophone en soutenant ses efforts et ses initiatives.
En conclusion, la déclaration de Calgary se veut un point de départ pour assurer l'épanouissement de tous le canadiens, peu importe de leur appartenance culturelle et linguistique. Il s'agit, en fait, d'un engagement à respecter les minorités, non pas seulement à l'échelle nationale, mais aussi à l'échelle provinciale. De la part du gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Écosse, nous nous attendons à un nouvel enagement à l'égard des minorités afin que nous puissions tous sortir de ce processus plus fiers et surtout plus solidaires. Merci.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: May I address you in English?
M. SAMSON: Sure.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Will you entertain some questions from the panel?
M. SAMSON: I will, yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: I apologize also for being unable to converse properly in French. A couple of things, if I could just very briefly. If I understood the translation correctly, first of all, that you, like the previous speaker, were saying that the seven principles really are a starting point? You are not saying that we are there yet, but those are things we have to work towards, correct?
M. SAMSON: Yes, I am.
MR. HOLM: The other thing that I didn't totally follow. You indicated that you felt that all governments needed to define the identity of the political foundation? Did I understand that correctly?
M. SAMSON: No. The point that was being made is that, as a minority, with the seven principles, we don't necessarily feel that everything is safe, that things will unfold and that we will be able to develop as Acadians or francophones. But they are a starting point and what needs to be done is for provincial governments to continue to regard minorities as resources and as people who make contributions to the province and the country as a whole.
MR. HOLM: So, I think I had better understand, you were saying something about the new Canadians coming in creating some challenges.
M. SAMSON: Yes, what I am saying is that Canada, like other countries, was founded by immigrants from all over the world. In Canada, we have two linguistic communities that have existed for years and it is recognized as a bilingual country. There are safeguards at the federal level and a major point here is that what we have done in Calgary is a starting point, but for a linguistic minority, as in Nova Scotia, the province will need, hopefully with the financial support of the federal government, as the previous speaker mentioned, when the feds move out the funding is sort of discontinued there. It does make for imbalances, but provincially we would need, it is really a provincial responsibility how we safeguard that, we are not sure. The principles are there. What needs to be done too. We enforce those in each province.
So, we are asking our provincial government, because that is the one that is closest to us, to support us financially, socially, morally and ensure that we can develop in our language, in our culture, and continue and contribute to the development of the province.
MR. HOLM: Thank you very much, that clarifies the points for me.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments or questions? Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much for coming this evening and making your presentation. Mr. Bryden Ryan, please, come forward.
MR. BRYDEN RYAN: My name is Bryden Ryan from Great Village, Nova Scotia. I decided I would come here tonight rather than go to Truro, because when you are at least 100 kilometres away you may be deemed an expert. (Laughter) I don't think I'm an expert. I have done some studying on the Constitution. I was taken by the ad that appeared in the paper, "Speak up Nova Scotia - This is Your Canada".
I don't think this is our Canada. It's Quebec's Canada. It has always been Quebec's Canada. We are Quebec's servants. Case in point, the Calgary Declaration endorsed by nine Premiers and two territorial government Leaders. I researched more than 30 books and numerous other articles on the Constitution of this country. Quebec has always demanded to have complete control and any time they felt that they were about to give up some control they, like the spoiled child, threatened to leave.
Separatists in Quebec would have you believe that Confederation offered them a bad deal with the rest of the provinces. Either they don't know their history, the history of Confederation, or they are counting on the fact that most other people in this country don't know their history.
Even before Confederation in 1867, the division of Canada into two main language groups, certain differences in social outlook and cultural expression were evident. In the 1850's, when French Canadians talked about representation by population when Lower Canada had the greatest number of inhabitants, legislation was passed to enlarge large
Catholic schools' rights in Upper Canada against the will of the Protestant majority of that province. When Upper Canada sought expansion into Hudson Bay territory, this was dismissed by Lower Canada because this would upset the so-called political equality by which the union of 1841 had been made acceptable to the French.
The Charlottetown Conference, which has been called to consider the proposal of Maritime union in 1867, would combine the three provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island into a larger colony.
Meanwhile, Upper Canada and Lower Canada were burdened with debts, inhibited from expansion mainly from the construction of the intercontinental railroad. Lower Canada believed that if they could persuade the Maritimes to join a larger union with Upper Canada and Lower Canada, they could accept Upper Canada's bid at expansion into the Hudson Bay territory while Lower Canada would, together with the Maritimes, outnumber Upper Canada in political strength.
Besides, Nova Scotia at that time, had an overflowing Treasury, an abundant fishery, good crops, her mining interests were expanding, and her shipyards were busy all year round. Our money could be used to finance the railway and further expansion in the two Canadas.
Canadian historical tradition records that at the Charlottetown Conference, the self-invited Valkyries successfully distracted the Maritime delegates from their priority subject of Maritime union by plausible, well-rehearsed arguments in favour of a British North America Federation, and by liberal use of champagne and camaraderie. In return for the larger union, Nova Scotia was promised that the intercontinental railroad would be completed through to Halifax so that goods in Central Canada could be shipped from the ports in Halifax.
Instead, the railroad was completed only as far as Saint John, New Brunswick. The Erie Canal was constructed to New York and the goods were shipped by way of the Erie through New York. When Joseph Howe became Premier of Nova Scotia, he went to England to try to rescind the Constitution and get Nova Scotia out of the union.
The British paid no attention to him because it was to their advantage to have one unified country to the north of the U.S. for military reasons. Remember, that Confederation followed the Civil War in the U.S. and our Constitution is modelled on the second American Constitution and the British parliamentary system of government. It was the weakness of the federal government in the U.S. which contributed to the Civil War.
If we had accepted the Meech Lake Accord or the Charlottetown Accord, we would most likely have found ourselves faced with a civil war in this country. We must have a strong federal government and no province or territory can be allowed to have special status over any other province or territory. We must accept in all provinces and territories, including
Quebec, that all Canadians are equal and have equal rights and power, while recognizing our multicultural and multi-ethnic citizenry.
We should be proud of who we are because of our own heritage, but we should not impose our ideas on those who have different beliefs. Any person is entitled to do whatever he or she wishes, as long as it in no way interferes with anyone else's human rights. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Ryan. I appreciate your travelling 100 kilometres from Great Village. He decided to weather the storm here rather than the one we had in Truro a couple of weeks ago. So, he was unable to attend. I do thank you for coming to make the presentation here to us tonight. Any comments or questions from any of the panel members? Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Just one question. In the seven clauses of the Calgary framework, you feel then that that gives special privileges to one province over another and if so, which ones would you identify?
MR. RYAN: I believe Number 5 says that, "In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.".
I believe, if Quebec wants to promote uniqueness - if they are unique, I don't believe they are unique. Unique means one of its kind. We have uniqueness here in Nova Scotia. For example, we have the highest tides in the world, we also have the deepest channel in the world at Point Tupper. That's unique. There are French-speaking people here in Nova Scotia and in other provinces in the country. Sure, the majority of Quebecers are French-speaking, but I don't think that, altogether, makes them unique. If they want to promote their culture or their diversity, or whatever they want to promote, then let them do it, but don't let them impose their ideas on the rest of the country.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carruthers.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Just a quick question on the relative powers of the two levels of government. I think in your historical presentation, you indicate that, well, I took it to mean that perhaps at one point in time that the Maritimes might have been sucked in, in joining Canada. That the way I kind of . . .
MR. RYAN: I believe they were and I believe that they have been sucked in ever since.
MR. CARRUTHERS: That is what I thought your message was. I am just interested in knowing now, assuming that that is a fait accompli, do you see then that we should be looking for a stronger central government than we have today, or perhaps should there be more powers given to the provinces? Given that historical perspective, is your view that the federal government should be strengthened or that the provincial government should be strengthened?
MR. RYAN: At one point, I said that the weakness of the federal government in the United States contributed to the Civil War in the United States. In the first Constitution of the United States, the federal government didn't even have the power to collect taxes from the states if the states didn't want to pay the taxes to the federal government. At the time of the Civil War in the United States, the federal government was just practically bankrupt. What they had done, in their original Constitution, was they had given more power to the states than the federal government had. The federal government should have the ultimate power in the country.
MR. CARRUTHERS: So, they should be strengthened? Is that the short answer?
MR. RYAN: Yes.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Ryan, I take that you are not in favour of the Calgary framework?
MR. RYAN: I'm in favour of Number 1, "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law.".
MR. RUSSELL: So, there are portions that you have no quarrel with?
MR. RYAN: The only thing that I have a quarrel with is to give special status to any singular group or to any particular province that is not given to any other group or to any other province. As long as one group or one individual is favoured over another individual, there is going to be disunity. Nobody wants to be made to feel that they are inferior to somebody else. Even if we call them distinct and we say it doesn't mean anything, it may mean something in future negotiations that they will throw back in our faces and say, but we are distinct, we have the right to. We can't get into distinctness, we can't get into uniqueness.
The reason that the Fathers of Confederation built the Constitution the way they did was because they had the original American Constitution and the previous American Constitution and the British parliamentary system to base the Constitution on. They tried to
avoid the pitfalls of the weaknesses of those constitutions. They didn't want to give anyone more power than the other.
I want to point out again, the rest of the provinces in this country didn't rope Quebec into Confederation. Quebec roped us into Confederation. They are saying they got a bad deal. If they got a bad deal, they made the deal. That is not our fault. I think they should learn their history and I think that at the present time, in high schools in Nova Scotia, you don't even have to have a history of Canada to get a high school completion. I think that is wrong. I think we have to educate our people. We have to know where we came from before we know where we are going. I believe most people don't know where they came from. They don't know where it all began.
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you very much.
MR. RYAN: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Ryan. It's a good history lesson for all of us and I appreciate you coming down. Thank you. (Applause)
Would Mr. Gene Lively come forward please? Is Mr. Lively with us this evening? We then move to Andrew Younger, private citizen, come forward. They may be arriving a little late so we will put them at the end, if they arrive later. David Peters, President and spokesperson for the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union. Is Mr. Johnson as well? Ian Johnson, policy analyst. That doesn't mean you have three times as much time. (Laughter)
MR. DAVID PETERS: I read your mind. Thank you, Madam Chairman. On behalf of the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Select Committee on National Unity about the Calgary Declaration framework for discussion, and also about the Aboriginal framework for discussion.
While the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union is in full support of the intent of the process, we cannot support the Calgary framework for discussion, ". . . as a version of Canada with which we feel at home;", and that is to quote from part of Resolution No. 164 that established the select committee unless there are major changes to it. We have taken this position because we are concerned about how this consultation process is being conducted for this province and, more importantly, we are also troubled by the vagueness of the wording of this framework. We are concerned what its possible implications might be, and we are concerned what does not appear to be included in it. We think further time and effort is needed by the committee, both to clarify the wording and to consider additional statements. As it is presently worded and without additions, we see the Calgary framework as setting the stage for a major step backwards in our collective sense of responsibility for each other, and for the future of social programs and, thus, for the future of Canada itself.
[8:00 p.m.]
I just want to comment on the consultation process for a moment and why we are concerned about it. We are concerned that it took three months from the Calgary Declaration for our government, this is not a criticism of the committee itself, to finalize and announce details of a public consultation process for the two frameworks. Six other provinces have already completed their process and passed motions in their Legislatures.
Why there is so little time for Nova Scotians to respond and why it would seriously seek public input during the Christmas season and early in the new year?
Why it does not use means of collectively engaging people to participate in this process such as public meetings in each constituency and even a provincial conference, as was the case in Saskatchewan?
Why would and should the five national Aboriginal organizations have to develop this document on their own after the Premiers met in September, if provincial and territorial governments were so committed to broad participation? In our view, these organizations should have been part of the original discussions and their statement should have been part of the original Calgary Declaration.
Why provincial and territorial governments all seem to be looking for a relatively quick endorsement of wording developed by the Premiers last September with little or no possibility for deletions or additions? In our view, a true people-first process would not start with a specific text, or with an all-Party committee. We think the process followed in 1991 in this province, with the appointment of a broadly representative working committee of non-elected officials on the Constitution would have been more useful and encouraging to more extensive public interest and participation.
Speaking about the Calgary Declaration, we are concerned with the vagueness of the wording of the Calgary Declaration. This is not to say we are opposed to the concepts of equality, diversity and flexibility. It is very difficult to argue against the Calgary Declaration in the statements it makes. What we are anxious about is how they will be interpreted, especially in the context of recent federal-provincial discussions about how social programs will be delivered. ". . . equal rights protected by law.", ". . . equality of status.", and ". . . equality of opportunity . . .", all sound very fine, but by themselves they do not ensure the right of all Canadians to a decent standard of living, to high quality universal health care, to meaningful employment, or to being able to live without systemic racism, violence or discrimination. By themselves, the notions of equality as described in the declaration suggests to us that you can be equal with everyone else and you can still suffer from ever-increasing poverty, oppression, racism and injustice.
We do see justification for this worrisome interpretation when the views of the Reform Party of Canada about the Calgary Declaration are examined. For example, in a December 27th guest editorial in the Calgary Herald entitled, How to Keep Canada United in the New Year, Preston Manning argues that the key concepts in the Declaration reflect or mirror Reform Party ideas presented in the House of Commons before the last referendum in Quebec. These ideas include equality of citizens and provinces, i.e. no special status; the value of uniqueness, that is recognizing Quebec's unique character; and the need to rebalance federal and provincial powers.
Not bad, one might say but take a closer look at how Reform defined these ideas in their six point plan for a fresh start for Canadians for the last federal election campaign. This plan reveals that they could well be translated to mean the transferring of major responsibilities back to individuals, families and communities, refocusing equalization payments toward Canada's poorest provinces, restoring welfare to provincial and local governments and abolishing federal affirmative action programs. In fact, on November 3rd last year, the Reform caucus did introduce a motion to repeal the Federal Employment Equity Act. As the declaration is presently worded, we fear that these interpretations are very possible and unfortunately, all too likely.
If you think this interpretation is too far-fetched, then consider what has happened to social programs in recent years and what is currently being discussed by federal and provincial governments. From the time that the federal Liberal Government first announced the Canada Health and Social Transfer, better known as the CHST in 1995, one of its key virtues was supposedly flexibility; that is, flexibility for provinces not to be subject to rules stipulating which expenditures are eligible for cost-sharing or not and flexibility for the federal government not to be driven by provincial decisions on how and to whom to provide social assistance and social services. The results have been devastating because in the last two years this country has seen major funding cuts, extensive elimination of services and jobs, the loss of national standards for income assistance and social services and the end of any reasonable hope for properly enforcing the five basic principles of Medicare.
What are provincial governments proposing in response? They are not designating funding, new national standards or even much in terms of restored funding but according to Premier Romanow, what is called joint interpretation of national standards or in other words, a further watering down of the possibility of national standards and their enforcement. There have even been reports that such a position is part of a back-room deal that the federal government must accept if it wants to get provincial cooperation on national unity.
Is this what we want from the two levels of government, working cooperatively and with flexibility as outlined in the Declaration? In our view, these problems will be intensified. If the federal government continues to download federal programs such as housing and job training to provincial and even municipal governments and if trade deal negotiations are concluded to open up social programs and facilities to commercial exploitation through
changes to the agreement in international trade with Canada, achieving hemispheric free trade or worse still, with the proposed but highly secretive multilateral agreement on investment known as the MAI that may be finalized as early as this May.
The Nova Scotia Government Employees Union fully supports all efforts to increase and strengthen the ties between Canadians across the country and to keep Quebec within Canada. At the same time we are not convinced that the Calgary Declaration will help to do so. Unfortunately, the reality for our members - and, we suspect, most Nova Scotians - is that the Declaration has not been a burning issue that demands their constant thought and attention. In our view, this is partly due to the process being so limited and partly due to the vagueness and narrow scope of the Declaration.
We would like to suggest and recommend that the consultation process be extended to allow Nova Scotians in all parts of the province to participate in it over a more reasonable period of time than a month or less during and after the Christmas season. The second recommendation, that the wording of the Declaration be strengthened to include the Oxfam Global Charter for Basic Rights. That is, that every Canadian has a right to enough to eat, clean water, a home, health care, education, a livelihood, a safe environment, protection from violence, equality of opportunity and a say in our future.
We feel the vagueness of the wording of the Declaration leaves it open for possible use to increase, rather than diminish, disparity, poverty, racism, discrimination and violence. We also recommend that no constitutional change be permitted which endangers our social programs or the federal spending power, as Nova Scotians told the 1991 working committee report. We also recommend that no possible back room deal between the provincial and federal governments be endorsed that will seriously undermine national social programs, the possibility of national standards and their effective enforcement in the name of national unity.
If our standard of living and our social programs are allowed to disintegrate, so will the human and social ties across the country. In fact, as the secretary-treasurer of our national union described the current situation with social programs, we are heading not toward sovereignty association but associated sovereignties with 10 quasi-independent states under a very shaky umbrella instead of a strong federal government.
We call upon the committee and the government not to accept the Calgary Declaration without some major changes. Our future depends upon your willingness to do so. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee and I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fage.
MR. FAGE: Thank you very much for the presentation. Just one question. The majority of the presentation is based on socio-economic policies. There is linguistic, diversity of culture, gender does not appear to enter into it in any large extent, your presentation. Is that by design?
MR. PETERS: Time permitting, we would have addressed a lot more and been more definite in other concerns but given that there have been so many presentations across the province, there were some that we wanted to focus in on and what you are saying is absolutely correct.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I also would like to thank you very much for your presentation and for being here this evening. Are there any other comments or questions? Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Thank you very much and just very briefly, the principle in terms of the motherhood of it and the warm fuzzies, you appreciate, you support, but what you are saying is that you don't have confidence that those good, warm feelings that you are trying to talk about in terms of equality and so on can be assured unless there is a clear definition as to what those different specific terms mean to ensure the continuation and I guess enhancement of the programs that Canadians from coast to coast have grown to value and which bind us?
MR. PETERS: That is exactly what it is we are saying because we cannot find much argument with the seven principles as laid out in the Declaration but what do they mean and how will they be implemented? We would like the assurances, to be able to read it in print, this is exactly what this means because often what is said by one person doesn't carry the same meaning to the listener and I think it is very important, if we are all striving for a Canadian national unity, which I believe we all are, let's not misunderstand what each other is saying. Let's be very clear what each of these principles actually mean so that the big fight won't be in the future, it will all be clearly understood now. Too often in the past a statement which people find comfort in, as you progress down the road you find out that, gosh, that is not what was meant, whether it be on health, education, social programs or whatever. Exactly what does it mean? If we are going to protect something, how are we going to protect it? Let's be very clear about that so there are no misunderstandings.
MR. IAN JOHNSON: Can I just add to that as well, I mean that is why we made the point that there is no recognition that there is such a thing as poverty or racism or oppression or injustice. We feel that is part of the reality of Canadians and of Nova Scotians. That is why we say that should be recognized and part of the Declaration.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: So you would see that as an addition to the Declaration?
MR. JOHNSON: We understand your mandate is to include the possibility of additions. You are not just to come forward with a resolution but to consider additions as well. We encourage you to look at that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: I was wondering, Mr. Peters, would not more specifics in the framework make it more difficult to get into further discussions?
MR. PETERS: We see the Calgary Declaration as a good basis for us all to sit down and discuss it but we think those further clarifications are absolutely mandatory if from coast to coast we are to be united under one Canada. What does each one of them absolutely mean in the minds of the writers so that the reader clearly understands what they are supporting or what they are not supporting? We believe with clarity that all Canadians will fully endorse those statements if they mean the warm fuzzy feeling that they give me, if that is exactly what they mean as we move down the road and they are implemented.
MR. JOHNSON: The experience for that comes through in the social program area. That is why we refer to the CHST. They talk about flexibility, working cooperatively, but if you look at what has happened, in our view, anyway, we have seen a real devastation in terms of national social programs. That is what comes out of the words that are in this declaration unless it is clarified further and unless it includes, as I tried to say before, reference to the reality and other areas of what Canadians are experiencing and also that is why we point out the value of looking at the Oxfam declaration because this year, as you may know, is the 25th Anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and why not look at some of the concepts that have been put forward in that as part of our effort to bring the country together?
MR. PETERS: When the CHST was being spun out as a change, it was all positive. I mean if you asked most Canadians today, do they feel positive about the results of the CHST, which in fact reduced spending in health care, education, meant the lowering of some levels of service in that, is that what you, as Canadians wanted, is that what you understood it meant? There is a large disagreement in the community out there about that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Peters and Mr. Johnson for coming forward. We appreciate you taking the time to be here this evening.
MR. PETERS: Thank you very much for the opportunity.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Derek John Seaman, private citizen, come forward. While Mr. Seaman is coming forward, I would also like to point out that we have with us as well tonight, the Honourable James Smith, Minister of Health and MLA for Dartmouth East. Thank you for coming tonight.
MR. DEREK SEAMAN: Madam Chairman, distinguished committee members, ladies and gentlemen. Perhaps some of you will be perplexed seeing that I have been introduced as presenter Derek Seaman. Few of you, though, know me better as Mike Slayter, adoption activist to some, spokesperson for Parent Finders Nova Scotia and board member of the Adoption Council of Canada. Going on the premise that I am a Canadian first, I have been asked by you to lend my voice of concern to the intent and wording of the declaration which was endorsed by nine Premiers and two territorial government Leaders on September 14th last year in Calgary.
I was, however, born Derek John Seaman, September 21, 1954, in Sydney, Nova Scotia. I was given, like any other, an immediate identity, an identity that distinguishes me from any other. A name that was registered with the Nova Scotia Department of Vital Statistics, an integral part of Canadian government. You may ask, what is in a name? Well, as we all know, a name is that which is chosen and used to identify persons for address but not just address alone. A name carries much more, doesn't it? For the majority, a name selects for us a unique spot in what we call the family tree. In fact, a map which details lineage and order of our forbearers. It is a map of truth and genealogical reference which can always be added to, bearing dates of birth, marriage and its issues and, of course, death. The family tree was devised, I suppose, to document procreation from generation to generation. It is, unquestionably, for many, the most philosophically profound knowledge that provides a personal understanding of ones own roots and for many, charts their course in life.
We are who we are not by mere environment but more so because of what is handed down through procreation. Would it not then be a philosophical right to access our own personal histories, unabridged and uncensored? Of course it is, or is it? Some believe that that right doesn't belong to everyone yet most take that right for granted.
Canada is in the throes of addressing a parallel of sorts through the avenues of committee hearings held in each province across this country. The issue is unity. It has been made clear that unity is a national issue and is to be treated with fairness and more particularly equality. It is further suggested that the contents and definitive understanding of our Canadian unity language not be conditional or partisan but instead penned in a manner that states all Canadians have the same unified rights. This is spelled out very clearly in the Declaration's first of seven statements, "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law.". Well, this would undoubtedly be a great improvement to the present status which, if penned, would read, all Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law except for members of the adoption community, particularly adoptees who, upon reaching the age of majority, are still required to obey all the laws and go to wars and pay the taxes like everyone else, but will not be allowed to have access to vital stats or any other information pertaining to their genealogical identity.
Number 3 of the Calgary Declaration offers the following, "Canada is graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world.". Again, this would be a vast improvement over the present situation which penned would read something like this, with the following disclaimer, Canada is conditionally - not traditionally graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion, et cetera - the disclaimer being, Canada, for the most part, though, is unwilling to allow members of the adoption community entitlement to their own diversity. Canada shows tolerance only by sometimes listening to the pleas of adoptees, like me, who have proven time and time again that disclosure laws across the country are Draconian and affront the human dignity and a violation of basic human rights, even though it was a Canadian who developed the human rights model for the world to use and that Canada is also now a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children. Such language as compassion and an equality of opportunity, et cetera, is thrown in because everyone thinks it looks good, it sounds good and so therefore it must be true.
Similar to Number 3, Number 4 again recognizes, "Canada's gift of diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and a multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world.". The adoption community is given neither chance nor choice to know intimately their birth origins and pertinent cultures, if applicable. We are, in fact, the only group of Canadians who are denied these same rights that all other Canadians, not impacted by adoption, have and share. Of all the Commonwealth countries, Canada has the most restrictive disclosure legislation and yet this country, through an endorsed declaration, has the audacity to claim that its equality is without rival in the world.
Number 6 of the Declaration deals with the federal aspect of Canada and its Constitution. "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces." It is time that Canada recognizes its blatant discrimination toward members of the adoption community and amend the Constitution to allow all Canadians equal entitlement and rights, unconditionally, and that it ceases to hide itself behind the veil of the BNA Act which apparently precludes this country dealing with adoption disclosure legislation on a national level. We are a nation of people that believes that the Calgary Declaration and its address on national unity should not be compromised or corrupted.
Number 7 is equally as important in intent as the first six. It prescribes the following, "Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions. Canadians want their governments to work cooperatively and with flexibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation. Canadians want their governments to work together particularly in the delivery of their social programs. Provinces and territories renew their commitment to work in partnership with the Government of Canada to best serve the needs of Canadians.".
While Number 7 suggests that Canada is a federal system which, undeniably, it is, I question if Number 1 and Number 7 can be read together in concert without conflict of either's intent. If Number 1 really intends, by endorsement, to ensure that all Canadians are equal and do, indeed, have equal rights protected by law, what then defines Number 7's jurisdictions and how and what are they applied to? Canadians impacted by adoption in British Columbia upon reaching the age of majority, can access information about themselves through B.C.'s Department of Vital Statistics while Canadians impacted by adoption in Nova Scotia cannot.
The question that must be asked then is, which comes first - jurisdiction or equal rights? If the answer is indeed jurisdiction, then there can be no unity declaration and this hearing, as well as all others, has been nothing more than an exercise in futility at the taxpayers' expense once again. If the answer is, in fact, equal rights for all, then the language of the Declaration must be amended so that any ambiguity or conflicting statement is eliminated. If it is the sincere intent of this declaration to best serve the needs of Canadians, then the language must include the word, all, in front of the word, Canadians, each and every time the word Canadians appears in this Declaration and not just the once as penned in Number 1 of the Declaration.
If I am not mistaken, there is an underlying theme to this concept of unity that must not be ignored. This theme is interwoven through the seven statements contained within this working model of the unity declaration. It is simply this, that this country will not tolerate bigotry, racism or discrimination of its citizens and that we all must work together to fulfil a goal set out by the intent of this declaration. This can be achieved by provinces working together to create a unilateral acceptance of equality, by implementing the required openness to amending legislation which, for many members of the adoption community at present, either prevents or hinders their quest for truth of their origins and ancestry by not only listening to the voice of the community but enabling the community to exercise the rights given to all others in this country who have the benefit of knowing their blood kin if they so wish.
The perception that this particular issue is insignificant in terms of a national unity debate is just one more example of government insensitivity. It is has been proven logistically that 1 in 5 Canadians is impacted by adoption. If it is the wish of this country to treat our fellow citizens like brothers and sisters, regardless of provincial or territorial boundaries, then at least let us first know who they are. After five years of searching, I at least know who my kinfolk are and that I, too, now have something meaningful to pass down to my children. Long before I leave this world, I would like to say that I am a proud Canadian without hesitation or reservation but this issue must be resolved first.
Nova Scotia has always been steeped in tradition and ancestry long before our counterparts to the West, save for the Aboriginals who have done a much better job in keeping their ancestry sacred despite the plundering interferences of others. What is in a
name, you ask? I was born Derek John Seaman on September 21, 1954 at the Salvation Army Hospital in Sydney, Nova Scotia. It took me 35 years to find that out.
The Department of Vital Statistics, which has a copy of my birth registration in this name, refused to confirm that this was the original name I was given, even after me showing them an original short form birth certificate and birth registration number bearing the name Derek John Seaman. I had gone so far as to fill out all the required forms, filling in all the information they had asked for and they still refused to comply with my right as a Canadian, regardless of the fact that Sections 15, 27 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically states that such rights and freedoms are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
[8:30 p.m.]
Further, that the Charter applies not only to the Parliament and Government of Canada but also to the Legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the Legislature of each province. Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, states that, the Charter is given primacy over all other laws in Canada, including the Canadian Bill of Rights, the three provincial Bills of Rights of Alberta, Quebec and Saskatchewan, and the anti-discrimination laws of all eleven jurisdictions. In addition, by Section 26 of the Charter, the guarantees of Charter rights and freedoms "shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.".
The issue of discrimination is the primary issue dealt with in the Charter and much thought and legalese is given to defining what constitutes discrimination in the first place. The consideration of discrimination brings up the intent or effect of such and is dealt with in the Quebec Charter, the racial convention as well as the women's convention. South of the border in the United States, the American Supreme Court has held in cases the contravention of the equal rights clause in the 14th amendment does require proof of intent. However, on occasion, the intent has been proved by proof of disparate impact - the effect of the application of the law - inequality of the application of the law. Think about it.
So what does this have to do with me? Well, after much fruitless protest from me, the Department of Vital Statistics in this province went so far as to offer this rebuttal regarding my birth name and thus my heritage and my roots. You have no right to the information you already have. All this because I am an adoptee first, not Canadian. There have been approximately 25,000 adoptions in this province alone over the last 50 years. Tens of thousands of Canadians face this perverted form of discrimination each and every day in our country. There are hundreds of thousands more who are equally discriminated against because they, too, are impacted by adoption legislation. They are our brothers and sisters, whether half or full. They are our aunts and uncles, birth grandparents, cousins.
Government, whether federal, provincial, municipal or territorial, have the responsibility of ensuring, through law, that equality for all Canadians by declaration does not fail to comply with or compromise and ignore the principles of its own human rights legislation which I presume has been born of and developed around some principles of simple humanity.
I have spoken on behalf of the adoption community tonight, as well as for myself and I do have the audacity and the fortitude but perhaps now more so the right to say that we are all Canadians first but will we ever be treated like our fellow Canadians who are not discriminated against by their country because they are fortunate enough not to be hindered or impacted by such archaic adoption legislation? I ask this question of our country and for our country. You may well know, Madam Chairman, and distinguished committee members, all of us know what that answer should be. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Seaman for your presentation. I appreciate you coming here this evening. Are there any comments or questions from the committee members? Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Mike - I feel comfortable calling you Mike because I have done that for a long time - I will just say that it is a very powerful presentation and I guess I could interpret, if I might, sum it up this way. You think that the principles are great but we have a long way to get there.
MR. SEAMAN: Yes, just work on the principles to achieve it because it can be achieved. It has been achieved in most of the other Commonwealth countries and we are one of the last Commonwealth countries to be dealing with this issue. I wasn't about to come up here and give anybody a history lesson. I was never good in school but I know something of adoption issues and it has been a very dear point to my heart because it has impacted not on me but a lot of people in my life and I really think this comes down to the core of the matter of being Canadian and understanding what being a Canadian is and having the same rights as anybody else. As simple as that. We are approaching the millennium. We need the change and we need it now.
MR. HOLM: I will just say, Madam Chairman, we have heard an awful lot about identities and so on and what you are doing is bringing the identity down to the very individual, the very personal.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions from committee members? Thank you very much, sir, for coming forward. (Applause)
MR. SEAMAN: You are welcome.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Dr. Morris Givner.
DR. MORRIS GIVNER: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the committee for affording me the opportunity to speak this evening. I wasn't going to mention my background because I didn't want to bias the content of my presentation but there is a lot of soft images in the Declaration so I feel it is important to feel out certain points. I was born in Montreal. I lived my first 49 years in Montreal. I was educated and worked in Montreal. I moved to Halifax 16 years ago and I just retired as Professor of Pathology at Dalhousie University.
In reference to the Calgary Declaration of September 14, 1997, I respectfully but totally disagree with the Calgary Declaration and in particular Number 5 and the special recognition accorded Quebec society and the Government of Quebec.
The Calgary Declaration is fundamentally misguided as it ignores the history of Quebec. Some wit once said that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Quebec has grown through the centuries from 8,500 French-European settlers to over 6 million people today. In 1840, the Durham Report resulted in the shotgun union of Lower and Upper Canada. The French bitterly resented this as their voice only represented 50 per cent of the then Canada. The British North America Act of 1867, although it provided the French with their own civil code, the use of French in legislative bodies and in the courts did not diminish their anger. The reason as stated by Bergeron, "the French were reduced to one-third of the population and could not prevent the masters of the country from governing as they wished". Today, 1998, the French make up only 25 per cent of the total Canadian population.
The Constitution Act of 1982 signed by every province except Quebec guarantees the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. The Charter recognized English and French as the official languages of Canada. In stark contrast, the Quebec Government only recognizes French as the official language of Quebec. Quebec's odious Bill No. 178 prohibits exterior signs in any language but French. Quebec's Bill Nos. 22, 101 and 178 were designated to discriminate, denigrate, diminish and humiliate the 20 per cent of the Quebec population who are not French. According to Robert Bourassa, the late Premier of Quebec, Quebec is the only territory in the free world where the minority is prohibited from using its own language on its signs.
According to Reid, and all my handouts have literature references that are fully documented, the total annual cost to the Canadian economy of federal language policy is $4 billion a year. Of this, $2.7 billion consists of direct federal expenditures, $300 million consists of provincial spending on language programs resulting from federal initiatives and over $2 billion consists of private sector compliance costs with federal language programs. In the same book, the page is cited, the total cumulative cost of the federal language policy from the beginning of the Trudeau years to now has been over $50 billion as part of the federal debt, billions more to various provincial debts and a permanent loss to Canadian consumers of over $50 billion worth of consumption. The various governments could have spent this money on
education, health and social programs to benefit all Canadians - and I underline all Canadians - for example, the unemployed, the homeless, the poor, the single mother, our children and the First Nations.
If one studies the numerical representation of francophones in the federal Public Service, they are grossly over-represented. This is documented in reference to Number 5. This means that non-francophones have been systematically discriminated against in selection for federal jobs under the guise of bilingual qualifications.
In my own native Quebec, the non-French have always been discriminated against in the selection of Public Service jobs. In fact, year after year they represent a disgusting 3 per cent of Public Service jobs. It doesn't matter whether you want to be a garbage man or a policeman or a justice, you don't get the job. Their numbers in Public Service are not in proportion to their numbers in Quebec. Canada's and Quebec's language policies are undemocratic, discriminatory, divisive, costly and nonproductive. These should be eliminated for the good of all Canadians.
If Quebec wishes to separate from the rest of Canada and it goes about it in an honest - and I underline honest - informative - and I underline informative - and democratic - and I underline democratic - manner, Canada should not stand in its way. However, prior to separation, it should be mandatory for the federal government and all the provincial governments to inform all Quebecers in writing of the economic and social consequences of their decision.
Namely, the Republic of Quebec will be liable for one-quarter of Canada's debt, that is their share of at least $100 billion, that is, Quebec's share is $100 billion. Servicing their debt would cost Quebecers another $9 billion per year. Quebec will no longer receive the substantial equalization payments each year from the federal government, and that's substantial. The bilingual hiring practices of the federal government will no longer favour francophones for Public Service jobs. Quebec industries such as industrial milk production, aircraft, pharmaceuticals, maple syrup, hydro will no longer receive preferential treatment from the federal government. I might add that there are two countries who pay the highest costs in the world for drugs, that is Canada and the United States. This is the result of the Patent Act which was passed and the Patent Act has resulted in us paying a lot of money for drugs and it is about 15 per cent of the Health budget. When we say we have no money for health and social programs, that is one of the reasons, because Quebec has a pharmaceutical industry and Ottawa caters to that pharmaceutical industry to the disadvantage of the rest of Canada.
After separation, the disproportionate influence of Quebec and Ontario on the federal government will be greatly diminished. There will be new pressure to relocate the national capital from Ottawa to a more central location, for example, Winnipeg. This could result in a better representation for all Canadians. Thank you very much. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Dr. Givner, we appreciate your coming forward. I think this will probably spur some questions or maybe not. Does anybody have any questions?
MR. CARRUTHERS: My pet question, and I see perhaps a bit of a different spin. In the system that we now have, presuming that Quebec would not separate from the nation how do you view the separation of powers. Do you see an increase in provincial powers would be more in line with your position, vice versa or the status quo?
DR. GIVNER: Well, I think there has to be an increase in federal powers because I think the appetite for power by the provincial governments is insatiable and I agree with Mr. Peters comments that in order to safeguard the social programs there has to be the wherewithal and the influence of the federal government. I do not subscribe to the view that there isn't money, there is a lot of money, the problem is priorities and we are misspending our money.
MR. FAGE: Just a question. I am not disputing any of the figures; they appear to be accurate and referenced. But, if I may, the question I would ask, the framework, as you have outlined it, for Quebec's responsibilities, the economy of Atlantic Canada, or indeed the remaining Canada, if the separation as you propose under these lines took place, do you foresee that economic activity in Eastern Canada, specifically the Maritimes, will be just as well or would we be looking at a lower standard of living?
DR. GIVNER: No, I do not subscribe to the view that the Maritime Provinces will die on the vine. Norway has survived very well; it is a small nation. Sweden has and we see the three Baltic States. If the people are well trained and well-educated, they will do very well. If Norway could survive, the three Maritime Provinces and Newfoundland could very well survive and there could be more trade with the south, as I understand this was the historical situation in the 19th Century, and not having the capital in Ottawa, which is totally dominated by Ontario and Quebec. If it would be relocated to Winnipeg, there would be an attempt to look more objectively at what each province wants. I think it is historically a nightmare and very unfortunate that the capital of Canada is so close to Quebec and Ontario.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: Madam Chairman, I would just like to put the proposition to you that the capital is probably located at the population centre at the present time, even though it isn't the geographic centre.
DR. GIVNER: Yes, Mr. Russell, I appreciate that, but that is not always a good thing. For example, Brazil tried to relocate their capital and they put it in the wilderness in order that there should be more objectivity. When Washington was first made into a capital, it was a
very small population. I think there is a lot of anger out West and I think it is justified because we are just focused on the issues of Quebec and Ontario.
MR. HOLM: I can't help but be drawn in, I guess, with one question as well, because you talked about the issues of national standards and protecting the health and other social programs. It has been suggested to us on other occasions that if we were, as a nation, to concentrate on those things that we value - developing the strong social programs, enhancing the health and education systems, et cetera, and putting our efforts into that - that many of the divisive things that are leading to these debates constantly on national unity would disappear, because we would then be concentrating on those things that we value in common.
DR. GIVNER: Mr. Holm, I do not subscribe to that. I think from the time of its inception, Quebec wanted to go alone. French Quebecers see themselves as a separate country; they never saw themselves as part of Canada. This is a non-French dream-world. This is why they were furious with the Durham Act, they were furious with the British North America Act. They were furious wherever they see that they are not masters of their own destiny. They will not accept it.
I think the Calgary Declaration is a dream document and it is totally irrelevant to what is happening in Quebec and I think that ultimately Quebec will be a nation on its own. If you do not believe me, look at the Montreal telephone book, public services. The Province of Quebec has a section this thick in terms of public services. The federal government has a section this thick. This means that every service that any Quebecer will ever want, they have been conditioned to feel that they are going to get it from the Quebec Government and not the federal government. These are the facts; just weigh the two sections.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir, for coming forward. I appreciate your being here with us this evening. We are moving along quite quickly time-wise, so I would remind the committee members, as well, to try to keep our comments as brief as possible in order that everyone has an opportunity to speak.
David Barrett, private citizen. Thank you very much, Mr. Barret, for coming forward. State your name and move forward.
MR. DAVID BARRETT: My name is David Barrett and I am from Beaver Bank. I have been a lifelong concerned Nova Scotian and I have been involved in many business, community and volunteer groups and endeavours. First, I want to thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing me to speak tonight.
Overall, I feel that the nine Canadian Premiers and the two territorial government Leaders have done an excellent discussion paper, and I support it. I want to point out that I didn't support the Charlottetown Accord or the Meech Lake Accord, because I felt they
weren't making us all equal. I would stress, and anyone I have talked to, that equal comes at the head of the list.
I have no problem with the word, unique, because I feel we are all unique. Nobody is being special there; we are all unique. I come from the community of Beaver Bank and we consider our community unique, and we have the same problem with Quebec. We feel we are going to be swallowed up by the super-city. We have to protect that uniqueness, so that you give the people the power to look after themselves.
The one thing I feel is missing in this discussion paper and I think we are wrong in the thing that we are saying we are English Canadians or French Canadians or Aboriginal Canadians. We should be Canadians first and when that comes first, then you can think of Canada first. But as long as you are an English Canadian first, you think of the English first; whatever comes first. I think there should be a policy that whenever government or the Legislature or anyone makes any literature, it should be Canadians of French descent or English descent or Aboriginal descent or African descent, so that you are Canadians first, and it should be stressed.
There is one thing that I wanted to mention, that we are all immigrants. The little bit of history that I know, even the Aboriginals immigrated to here, just that they came first. So, we are all foreigners in our own country in a way - or our ancestors are - but we are here now and we are all equal and we should keep that.
I was very pleased tonight that you sang O Canada. When I went to school, we sang O Canada every day to start the class. I was on the board of trustees of our high school in Sackville and in the 1980's they didn't even play it. I was never so surprised in my life; I just took it for granted. I don't know what the HRM does, but I know in the county we got a motion passed that they play it every day. If we don't practise this ourselves, we won't be teaching our kids.
I think this is a good start and I know there were comments here today that it is not long enough, but the thing is the longer you make something - and this was one reason I was against the Meech Lake Accord - it was so long that anybody could interpret it a thousand different ways. This one you might be able to interpret it a hundred different ways, but the smaller it is and the more compact, the more united you will make people.
Anyway, I want to thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to express my views.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Barrett, for taking the opportunity; I appreciate your coming forward this evening. Are there any comments or questions?
MR. HOLM: You say that Beaver Bank is two words.
MR. BARRETT: And I thank the members of the Legislature for passing that. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Gerald Hoganson, please come forward. I would ask you to state your name when you are prepared and settled.
MR. GERALD HOGANSON: My name is Hoganson - H-o-g-a-n-s-o-n - Gerald Hoganson. I pronounce my name the same way as the King of Norway, although I spell it somewhat differently. I presently live in Bedford and I was born in Halifax. I have lived and worked in this area most of my life. However, I have also lived and/or worked in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. I did work one summer in the eastern Arctic, about forty years ago - I counted back tonight - which seems like a long time. I have also travelled to every other province in Canada. The only place I haven't been in Canada is the Yukon, but I spent a fair amount of time in other provinces. I don't say this to claim to be any kind of expert on Canadian unity, but rather to sort of give you a perspective from where I speak, I guess.
I spent two months at the University of Montreal in May and June 1970. That was the period immediately previous to the so-called October Crisis with the FLQ in October 1970. During the eight weeks I was there, the FLQ exploded nine bombs; the furthest was about a mile away and the closest and last was about 100 yards away in the garage of J. Louis Levesque. At any rate, I was there. That year I also attended the St. Jean-Baptiste Day parade where a Quebec nationalist group composed of adults and children dressed in black military-style uniforms and wearing masks marched in the parade; that was a very intimidating experience for an English-speaking person and has given me an awareness, I guess, of the temperament of the nationalist sentiment in Quebec, how deep the feelings go and of the mentality of some of the people involved, not all of them but some of them. So, the kidnappings of Cross and LaPorte which occurred two or three months later were not surprises to me.
I have been an interested witness, largely through the news media, to the various conflicts among Canadians relating to issues primarily, but not exclusively, concerning Quebecers for the past 50 years. I started reading the newspaper when I was seven years old and I have been aware of things all the way from the conscription crisis of the 1940's - conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription; only a politician could say that - and it has continued through the national anthem and flag debates to the last referendum. So, my interest in Quebec goes a long way back and I guess my awareness of Quebec goes a long way back.
In the recent past there have been a number of attempts by federal and provincial governments to satisfy the nationalists in Quebec by recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, so-called. These attempts were rejected by a majority of Canadians, in my opinion, for two separate reasons. One, many people perceived the phrase, distinct society, to mean that the people of Quebec were special and that the rest of us, somehow, at a constitutionally recognized lesser status; and, two, that the phrase, distinct society, would be used to defend the Quebec Government against legal challenges to any legislated discrimination of non-francophones in that province. Bill No. 101 and the Referendum Act are two pieces of legislation that were deemed by the Supreme Court of Canada to, in fact, be discrimination against non-francophones, or invalid under the Charter.
[9:00 p.m.]
Consequently, any proposed constitutional changes, in order to gain wide national acceptance - not only in Quebec, but in Canada - must address those first two concerns and also address the legitimate concerns of the people of Quebec for the protection and continuance of their language and culture. We should also ensure that the language and cultural rights of francophones outside Quebec and non-francophones inside Quebec are similarly protected.
I don't think we should attempt to satisfy the separatists in any way, and I don't think that we can, because I don't think they can be satisfied by any constitutional change other than separation. With any attempt to appease the separatists in Quebec, we should not weaken the federal government by devolving federal powers to any or all provinces in any doomed failure attempts to convert separatists to Canadian nationalists. The separatists see any concession as just one more step towards independence, not as an end to any process.
I believe that many people in Quebec voted yes in the last referendum because they thought they were giving a mandate to the provincial government to negotiate constitutional changes with Canada. They were not voting directly to separate, but they were misled by their government who, in fact, tricked them into giving them that sort of mandate by saying we are not going to separate when, in fact, their intention was to separate. Jacques Parizeau admitted that and Bouchard is quite capable of that. In my opinion, the majority of the population of Quebec does not support separation and our strategy and our efforts should be directed towards removing the separatist support from among the non-separatist population of Quebec by removing any ambiguity from any referendum question on the relationship between Quebec and Canada, to ensure that in future the people of Quebec know exactly what choice they are making.
Having said all of this, the question then arises, I guess, whether or not the Calgary Declaration will serve any purpose or will serve as the basis for any sort of lasting relationship between the Government of Canada on the one hand and the provinces, including Quebec and the territories, on the other, and will it be acceptable to the general population of Canada. Will
it satisfy and protect not only the majority in Quebec, but also the non-francophone minority in Quebec and be acceptable to the majority of Canadians generally.
The Declaration proposes to change the description of the population of Quebec from a distinct society to the unique character of Quebec society. I don't think that this change in phrasing alters anything in any significant way, except to remove a discredited slogan from future consideration, the discredited slogan being distinct society. The new phrase by itself does nothing to address the concerns of Canadians who fear that the Government of Quebec will attempt to use the new phrase, the unique character of Quebec society, as justification for present and future discrimination against non-francophones in that province.
However, the first two articles in that Declaration, one and two, those which outline equality of rights and status for all individuals and provinces, if they are clearly described as taking precedence over Number 5, the unique character article, then those two articles should protect the language rights of the minority language population of Quebec and be acceptable to the majority in Canada. If this is not clearly stated, then I believe that the unique character clause will be perceived in the same way as the distinct society clause was viewed by Canadians and will be rejected by the general population in any future national referendum.
Speaking, as I am, of a national referendum, it should be clearly understood and agreed that this Calgary Declaration will be put to a national referendum so that all citizens of Canada will have an opportunity to pass judgment on it. I don't think that the people of Canada are prepared to entrust the future of Canada to politicians.
I was pleased to see that the Prime Minister has apparently abandoned his plans to make de facto changes in the constitutional relationship between Quebec and Canada by having Parliament pass a series of resolutions to confer distinct society status on Quebec, thereby bypassing the constitutional process and despite the fact that there was a previous rejection of that clause by Canadians.
The uncertainty surrounding the future of the relationship between Quebec and Canada continues to have a severe economic impact on all Canadians, particularly so those in Quebec. For example, our currency exchange rate is lower than it should be; part of that is the uncertainty in Quebec. That increases the cost of imports and foreign travel. Tomatoes are $3.49 a pound at the IGA today; they are grown in California. The dollar is worth 68 cents; it is not hard to see. The relocation of existing businesses from Quebec to places outside Quebec is another example of the adverse effect of this uncertainty. Jobs are being lost in Quebec at a time when they are being created in most other parts of Canada. There is also a brain drain from Quebec to other provinces and to foreign countries; highly educated and trained people are leaving Quebec in droves.
There is also the psychological harm that is affecting people in Quebec by all of this uncertainty, particularly those who want to remain in Canada, and the uncertainty of where they will be in the future; also the psychological harm that is being imposed on people outside Quebec who have connections in Quebec or strong feelings towards Quebec. Then there is the psychological harm that is affecting Nova Scotians and other Atlantic Provinces people who want to go down the road but the road is going to stop in Edmundston if Quebec separates.
Because the present Government of Quebec is advocating separation and resists any attempts to involve it in Canada-wide federal-provincial programs, programs which would demonstrate the value of Quebec being part of Canada, new programs for the benefit of all Canadians are virtually impossible to implement. I don't know if the national Pharmacare Program was one of those problems or not, but there was nothing in the news story today that would indicate there was any intransigence by Quebec in that.
I believe that Canadians, generally, want this matter resolved within a reasonably short time period and for this resolution, whatever it may be, to have an appearance of finality to it. Canadians are not prepared to have this problem continue indefinitely into the future, nor to face a seemingly endless series of referenda. Every time we go through another one of these so-called crises with Quebec, I think there is a loss of goodwill towards Quebec by otherwise sympathetic Canadians because they see this as another and another and when does it ever end.
Therefore, I would make the following recommendation to the governments of Canada and the provinces:
1. That the federal and provincial governments continue to hold the initiative in this matter by proceeding to the next logical step, which is to put the Declaration in referendum form and submit it to the people of Canada for their judgment.
In all these referendum activities in the past, the Government of Quebec has seized and held the initiative, and the rest of the country, the Government of Canada, has always been reacting to it. The provincial Premiers, to their credit, have seized the initiative here and I think we should continue with the initiative and carry it through to a logical conclusion so that we have some control over the situation rather than being at the whim, I guess, of the Quebec Government.
I would not wait for the Supreme Court of Canada to decide on the ability of the Quebec Government to legally separate, as that decision will have no effect on the acceptance of the Declaration. They are two separate issue. In one place, the people of Canada are saying, well, this is what we think the relationship with Quebec should be and then the other,
the Supreme Court of Canada saying, well, if you decide to separate then this is the process you must use.
2. The federal government clearly inform the Government of Quebec that it will not recognize the results of any referendum conducted by the Government of Quebec which is not based on a clearly stated separation, yes or no question. Fuzzy questions, like sovereignty/association should be non-starters.
3. The federal government should be prepared to conduct its own referendum in Quebec on separation if that is the only way that a clear answer to an unequivocal question on separation can be obtained.
In conclusion, I would say that it is my opinion that the Calgary Declaration, while not perfect, still presents Canadians with a vehicle and a process to address the question of the continuance of Quebec as a province within Canada, and to ensure that the people of Quebec and Canada have a fair and democratic opportunity to express their opinions and to make their decision. Thank you for listening to me.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Hoganson, for making the presentation and for being here this evening. Are there any questions from the committee? I think your presentation pretty well answered the questions that we generally get. So, I do appreciate you for covering all your points very well. Thank you very much, sir.
Would Madame Marie-Claude Rioux come forward. As soon as you're comfortable, and prepared, please state your name.
MME. MARIE-CLAUDE RIOUX: J'aimerais tout d'abord prendre l'occasion au nom de la Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse de vous remercier de nous avoir accorder l'occasion de vous adresser ces mots ce soir, et aussi d'avoir choisit d'inclur parmi les membres de votre comité un député et ministre acadien de langue française. C'est grandement apprécier.
Alors, sens puis tarder, je vais commencer ma présentation. Madame la présidente, mesdames et monsieurs.
Si la Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse a choisi de vous présenter une courte réflexion en réaction à la déclaration sur l'unité canadienne, c'est parce que qui dit unité canadienne, dit famille et que, pour une fédération des parents, le terme famille prend tout son sens.
Les familles acadiennes ont la réputation d'être très prolifiques. Il n'y a pas si longtemps, en effet, il n'était pas rare de compter, en Acadie, de nombreuses familles de 10 enfants et plus. Or, plus il y a de membres dans une famille, plus il y a de chances qu'un de ses membres se démarque des autre : le plus vieux est artistique, l'autre a toujours le nez plongé dans les livres, le petit dernier montre un talent certain pour le hockey, la cadette sera certainement mécanicienne. Chacun des membres de la famille a des caractéristiques qui lui sont propres. Chacun des membres est donc différent des autres.
Être différent fait souvent peur. Nos adolescents connaissent bien cette réalité et cherchent à tout prix à appartenir à un groupe, par peur de paraître différent. Ils apprennent éventuellement à apprivoiser cette peur et, une fois rendus sur le marché du travail, ils cherchent à exprimer leur différence et le besoin de s'identifier à un groupe devient beaucoup moins important. Si nos enfants sont capables de surmonter une telle peur, pourquoi n'en ferions-nous pas autant?
On dit parfois d'une personne un peu différente qu'elle est un mouton noir, et ce terme existe dans les deux langues officielles de notre pays. Si, de nos jours, ce terme a une valeur plutôt péjorative, c'est parce qu'on a choisi de la lui donner. Pourquoi le fait d'être différent serait-il négatif? Nous croyons, au contraire, que la vie serait plutôt triste dans une famille où tous les membres se ressembleraient. Où pourrait-on trouver les idées nouvelles, le talent qui cherche à s'exprimer, la façon spéciale de regarder un peu de travers, les manies spécifiques à l'un ou à l'autre si tous se ressemblaient? Il est facile d'imaginer un scénario chaotique où tous les membres d'une même famille se battraient pour avoir le droit de porter un veston ou encore pour obtenir la permission de conduire l'auto.
Mais revenous à nos moutons. Qui est donc ce mouton noir? C'est souvent quelqu'un qui ne pense pas comme les autres, c'est souvent celui qui ne fait pas certaines choses comme les autres, c'est aussi celui qui est conscient de sa différence. Trop souvent, c'est celui qui se sent à l'écart, c'est celui qui pense qu'il est le moins aimé.
On a souvent tendance à voir le Québec comme le mouton noir de la famille canadienne. Malheureusement, pour une grande partie des gens, le terme reprend sa connotation péjorative. Le Québec est pourtant une province différente. La loi provinciale y est différente, les gens y parlent français en majorité, la culture y est différente. Pourquoi ces différences ne seraient-elles pas reconnues?
Une famille respectueuse des valeurs familiales décide que tous ses membres se sentent important. Une famille respectueuse des valeurs familiales met en valeur les talents de tous ses membres. Une famille respectueuse des valeurs familiales reconnaît au mouton noir qu'il est peut-être différent mais qu'il est, tout de même, un mouton.
Voilà notre chance de dire au Québec que malgré sa différence, et surtout en raison de celle-ci, il est le bienvenu dans la famille canadienne. Il s'agit d'un effort de solidarité familiale et nous croyons que nous avons beaucoup à gagner en faisant ce pas de l'avant.
La Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse a été créée en 1984 en vue de promouvoir les valeurs des parents acadiens désirant la gestion et le développement de l'éducation française de leurs enfants. Pour cette raison, les commentaires qui toucheront chacun des points du cadre de discussion seront présentés dans une perspective de l'éducation.
1. "Tous les Canadiens et Canadiennes sont égaux, et leurs droits sont protégés pas la loi.".
Le seul fait d'avoir recours à la loi pour fair respecter des droits acquis indique bien que l'égalité des canadiens et des canadiennes est loin d'être chose acquise. Depuis l'adoption de l'article 23 de la Charte, de nombreux parents ayants droit ont eu recours aux tribunaux pour faire respecter le droit à une éducation dans leur langue maternelle.
2. "Malgré des caractéristiques propres à chacune, toutes les provinces sont égales.".
En éducation, les provinces ne sont pas égales. La Nouvelle-Écosse est la seule province qui n'offre pas une éducation française homogène de la maternelle à la douzième année à sa minorité.
3. "La diversité, la tolérance, la compassion et l'égalité des chances qu'offre le Canada sont sans pareilles dans le monde.".
Certes, le Canada fait l'envie de bien des pays du monde. Toutefois, rien n'est parfait. De nombreux canadiens ne voient pas la richesse que nous apporte la diversité de notre pays. De même, la tolérance face aux minorités de langues officielles et la reconnaissance d'une éducation égale représentent des valeurs qui ne sont pas encore acquises.
4. "Les peuples autochtones et leurs cultures, le dynamisme des langues française et anglaise et le caractère multiculturel d'une population issue de toutes les régions du monde sont des éléments dont est constituée la riche diversité du Canada.".
Il ne faudrait pas oublier la reconnaissance des deux peuples fondateurs. Les francophones du Canada ne se distinguent pas uniquement en raison de la langue qu'ils parlent, mais ils se distinguent aussi par leur contribution à la construction de notre pays. C'est au nom de ce principe que les francophones et les anglophones peuvent bénéficier, où qu'ils soient au Canada, d'une éducation dans leur langue maternelle.
5. "Dans le régime fédéral canadien, où le respect pour la diversité et l'égalité est un fondement de l'unité, le caractère unique de la société québécoise, constitué notamment de sa majorité francophone, de sa culture et de sa tradition de droit civil, est fondamental pour le bien-être du Canada. Par conséquent, l'assemblée législative et le gouvernement du Québec ont le rôle de protéger le caractère unique de la société québécoise au sein du Canada et d'en favoriser l'épanouissement.".
Nous insistons sur l'importance du rôle de protéger le caractère unique de la société québécoise au sein du Canada et d'en favoriser l'épanouissement. Le Québec et le Canada ont aussi la responsabilité partagée de protéger le caractère unique et de favoriser l'épanouissement de la société francophone canadienne dans son ensemble, que le territoire soit québécois ou autre. Le taux d'assimilation alarmant des francophones du pays, 42 pourcent en Nouvelle-Écosse, indique bien la nécessité de maintenir les acquis sur le plan de l'éducation et de travailler à perfectionner le système éducatif.
6. "Si une future modification constitutionelle devait attribuer des pouvoirs à une province, il faudrait que ces mêmes pouvoirs soient accessibles à toutes les provinces.".
Nous n'émettons aucune réserve sur ce principe.
7. "Le Canada est un régime fédéral dans le cadre duquel les gouvernements fédérals, provinciaux et territoriaux travaillent de concert, tout en respectant leurs compétences respectives. Les Canadiens et Canadiennes souhaitent que les rapports entre leurs gouvernements soient marqués par la coopération et la souplesse, pour faire en sorte que la fédération fonctionne efficacement. La population canadienne désire que ses gouvernements oeuvrent de concert, tout particulièrement en matière de prestation des programmes sociaux. Les provinces et les territoires réaffirment leur volonté de collaborer avec le gouvernement du Canada afin de mieux répondre aux besoins des Canadiens et des Canadiennes.".
L'éducation est un champ de juridiction provinciale. Toutefois, de nombreux citoyens ont dû avoir recours aux lois enchâssées dans la Charte canadienne, aux services du Commissaire aux langues officielles et aux fonds distribués par le ministère de Patrimoine canadien dans le but de faire avancer le dossier de l'éducation. La Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse n'a pas remarqué de désir de coopération et de souplesse en matière d'éducation chez ses élus provinciaux et elle doit trop souvent compter sur ces partenaires fédéraux pour faire avancer le dossier de l'éducation. La concertation devrait exister non seulement en matière de prestation des programmes sociaux mais aussi en matière d'éducation.
Bien que la déclaration de Calgary reconnaisse le caractère unique de la société québécoise, nous demandons aux canadiens de ne pas oublier que les francophones qui n'habitent pas le Québec, qu'ils se nomment acadiens, fransaskois, ou franco-ontariens, peuvent eux aussi revendiquer cette unicité. En Nouvelle-Écosse, il reste beaucoup de travail à faire dans le domaine de l'éducation : il nous reste encore à obtenir un système d'éducation en français, de la maternelle à la douzaine année, partout dans la province; il nous reste à consolider nos institutions, le Collège de l'Acadie et l'Université Sainte-Anne par exemple, afin que nous soyons capables d'embaucher des acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse capables de travailler dans les deux langues; il nous reste à développer toujours plus de projets afin de permettre à notre jeunesse de vivre sa langue et sa culture.
Permettez-nous, en terminant, de formuler quelques souhaits. Nous souhaitons que le Québec aide de façon encore plus significative tous les francophones du pays, qu'ils soient de la Colombie-Britannique ou de la Nouvelle-Écosse. Grâce à un partenariat sans cesse grandissant avec le Québec, nous réussirons à faire des pas de géant. Nous souhaitons que, dans un avenir raproché, les citoyes du Canada reconnaissent à leur minorité de langue officielle les mêmes droits qu'ils ont acquis. Nous souhaitons que les francophones qui n'habitent pas le Québec aient autant de droits que les anglophones qui habitent cette province, à grande majorité francophone.
Finalement, nous souhaitons que les acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse et, de façon plus générale, les francophones du Canada anglais cessent de dépendre du Québec pour s'affirmer et que, peu importe ce que l'avenir nous réserve, les communautés de langue officielle continuent de vivre en harmonie.
Il est grand temps de s'unir et de travailler ensemble. La famille canadienne souffre de ce climat d'incertitude. Les acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse subissent trop souvent les contre-coups de ce qui se passe au Québec, au point d'en être arrivé à rejetté d'emblée tout ce qui est québécois, y compris la langue et la culture. Et pourtant, nous avons bien des choses en commun.
La Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse tient à exprimer publiquement son appui à la déclaration de Calgary. Nous croyons qu'en reconnaissant un caractère unique au Québec, c'est tout le Canada qui en bénéficiera. Nous croyons aussi qu'en reconnaissant un caractère unique au Québec, nos enfants en bénéficieront.
Faire des enfants, c'est chose facile. Les élever, en faire des adultes responsable et respectueux des différences des autres, voilà ce qui constitue le vrai défi. La Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse demande aux citoyen de cette province de s'allier au plus beau projet qui soit : préserver l'unité de notre famille afin de lui permettre de grandir. Bâtissons sur nos différences! Merci de votre attention.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Would you entertain some questions in English?
MME. RIOUX: I will try.
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: Où demeure les fransaskois?
MME. RIOUX: Saskatchewan.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carruthers.
MR. CARRUTHERS: You don't want me to try that.
MME. RIOUX: But I hope you won't expect me to have the perfect answer in English as well.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I will try to be brief and expect the answer briefly. I have had this issue raised before on the education in French within Nova Scotia. There have been some who have indicated that the Quebec issue, the issue of possible separation, has actually caused an improvement in the Nova Scotia system. Some have said, over the last few years, there has been some improvement in French education in Nova Scotia. Some have indicated that perhaps this issue in Quebec has helped Nova Scotia francophones, others have said it has hindered. Do you have a view?
MME. RIOUX: Well, yes. I think that the federation has a view on that one. Right now, just to give a very precise example and a very short one, we are taking the government to court to make sure that we have all our schools from Primary to Grade 12 in French where the number justifies. We haven't had any support from Quebec.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: I just have one question, Madam Chairman, and that is, we have had two points of view with regard to language in our schools in the Province of Nova Scotia. There is one school of thought which says that, I suppose, partial whole language French from Primary to Grade 12 is most desirable, while others have suggested that there should be a mix of English and French in the same school. I was just wondering what were your views on that particular subject?
[9:30 p.m.]
MME. RIOUX: We deal with those points of view basically every day. We are very aware of that. Now, every province in Canada but Nova Scotia chose to go the French only route. UNESCO also said that, if I can - I'm used to repeating this one in French, I'll try in English - that the mixed schools are a civilized way to assimilate people. Who are we to dispute what UNESCO says, do you know what I mean? We also think that actually, the French and English languages are not really and should not be an issue in Canada. In Sweden, they are teaching 12 different languages. In Europe, it is very surprising, I would say, if you hear of a person who speaks only one language. They speak three and four. I think actually that it is a non-issue. Let's make sure that the language we learn first is very properly learned. Because I used to teach French as a second language to military students, I know for a fact that the students who were learning the other language, who were learning French better, were the ones that had a better grasp of their mother tongue, and I have seen that for nine years. So, I think it sort of proves the point.
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Just very briefly, really just following that same point, aren't the French schools moving to being homogenous in French now, that next year's Grade 10, all of the students in the Acadian schools will be taught in French and then moving to Grades 11 and 12?
MME. RIOUX: No, it is not the case right now. In some areas it is, in others it is not, not for Grade 10. As well, the education law does not recognize, or give a mandate to the Acadian district school boards to create French programs and it is not French schools. Okay, you can teach all French courses in a school, but if the school is not a French school, it means that in the hallways, it means that the personnel, it means that everything as far as the policy of the school is not French. Therefore, you might as well teach Latin. I mean it has no support. I always compare that to a frame where the program would be the picture. If you don't have the frame to put that picture in evidence, to make it prettier or to actually frame it, to support it, as a school would do to the program, well, I'm afraid we are getting nowhere.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci. Thank you very much for coming forward this evening. Captain Harvey Adams, come forward, and Barbara Schmeisser. You are alone, sir?
CAPTAIN HARVEY ADAMS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Captain Harvey Adams. I'm from Dartmouth. I am here tonight to commit my support to the Calgary accord. I apologize that my wife, Barbara, cannot be here tonight, because for the
past four years, Barbara and I have been working on a Canadian unity project called, Canada Sea.
I thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very important issue of national unity. The Quebec referendum was a much-needed wake-up call for all of us complacent Canadians who took Canada, as we know it, a confederation of 10 provinces and 2 territories for granted.
In the final days of the referendum campaign it became painfully obvious to millions of Canadians that it was essentially to rally and to show the people of Quebec that the rest of the country wanted Quebecers to remain Canadians. From every part of Canada, north, east, south and west, Canadians spoke out and demonstrated support for a united Canada. This 11th hour expression of loyalty and love for Canada convinced a majority in Quebec that the best choice was to choose Canada over separation.
I believe most Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or any other province and territory, would like to put the question of Quebec sovereignty to rest for all time. Now is the time to counter the platform of the separatist Government of Quebec. One way of achieving this goal is to promote what we Canadians share in common while we respect each other's cultural differences.
Ordinary Canadians encouraged by provincial and federal governments are demonstrating their concern and support for Canadian unity by attending public forums such as this and, hopefully, as a result, governments will act upon some of the suggestions presented that promote a better Canada in the 21st Century.
The principle set out in the Calgary Declaration emphasizes that all Canadians have been and still are invaluable contributors in defining our country. The Calgary Declaration also recognizes our collective uniqueness as members of different cultures and have enriched all of Canada.
For these reasons, we as Canadians should support this accord. However, we must never again be complacent about our identity as Canadians and we must understand that this accord is only the beginning of what is an ongoing process. This accord, the provincial Premiers' response to reaffirming Canadian unity, is equally important that the Province of Nova Scotia show its support for Canadian unity projects that have grass-roots origins.
I would like to describe briefly a proposal that I and my wife, Barbara Schmeisser, initiated four years ago called the Canada Sea Proposal. It has attracted a considerable amount of interest and publicity and has the support of a broad spectrum of the Canadian people.
No change to any existing place names are proposed. The proposal is to introduce the name, Canada Sea, to an extraordinary inland sea, the largest sea in the world that is located within the boundaries of one country. That is a geographical feature. This inland sea has never been formally recognized.
It is composed of James Bay, Hudson Bay, Foxe Basin, Ungava Bay and the Hudson Strait. These names would continue to exist as they always have, in the same way that other bodies of water within a larger body of water retain their identity. This does not preclude other Canadians such as the Inuit from using names that better reflect local usage or cultural associations.
I would like your committee to review this unity project in the context of other proposals you have received and I would like you to communicate your support of the proposal to the Government of the Northwest Territories.
By uniting with this territory and the Inuit people, seven of nine Nunavut communities have already voted in support of the Canada Sea proposal. The Government of Nova Scotia could demonstrate its commitment to Canadian unity and to a sense of national pride and appreciation of all of Canada's exceptional assets that include special places and special people.
I have enclosed copies of the Canada Sea proposal which has several selections and accompanying justification which I believe contain convincing arguments regarding the wording of this proposal. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
Now, the proposal, itself, is quite lengthy. It consists of about 31 pages so we just cannot go tonight. If you would like a quick history lesson, geography lesson, or whatever, I can give you a little rundown here.
I wish everybody could see it but for you people who have never had a look at it already, this body of water consists of 1,132,000 square kilometres. It is the biggest inland body of water anywhere in the world.
The next time you see them giving out the weather, you will see a big map of Canada and you will always see this great body of water. There is nothing marked on it. Someday, I would love to see Canada Sea here, then everybody in Canada, every child as they grow up, will feel they own a little bit of Canada.
Last year I was invited down to Mabou High School in Cape Breton to give a talk. I addressed the Grade 11 and Grade 12 young boys and young women. It was really something special for me to have done that. I will never forget it. They were really enthusiastic and they thought that everybody would own a little bit of Canada.
The wonderful thing about this, or the strange thing about it, this is not my suggestion, really. It was suggested in 1903 by W.F. MacLean. He introduced a Private Members' Bill in 1903. So it got first reading and then it died for various reasons but I will not elaborate on them here. Anyway, now by combining these bodies of water right across Canada, since it borders on Ontario, Quebec, the Northwest Territories, the Government of the Northwest Territories really have the authority to do it but they want input from everyone else and to date, in the last four years, my wife and I have been working on it and we have got nine Nunavut communities to vote and out of nine, seven voted for.
What we want from the committee, here, is to give their support, if they will for this. We have had a lot of coverage across Canada in the newspapers and so on and so forth and to date we have only had one letter that was totally against it. Do you have any questions?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation. It is certainly an intriguing proposal. I hadn't heard it before and I see you have put a lot of time and effort into this. How many years did you say?
CAPT. HARVEY ADAMS: We have been working on it for four years. We have letters from Prime Minister Trudeau, Farley Mowat. There are some very prominent Canadians who support this in principle.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions or comments from the committee? Mr. Carruthers.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I just have a quick comment. Through the hearings we have had others come forward with projects they have had such as student exchanges and the like and one of the presenters said, you shouldn't leave this unity issue to the politicians. This is an example that I think goes along with one of those comments and I just want to compliment you on it because I think to the business community, the education community and projects such as this, we may preserve the unity of this country and that is a comment, not a question.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir. I don't believe there are any other questions. Thank you for coming forward.
CAPT. HARVEY ADAMS: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to show my project.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ronald Colman, please come forward. As soon as you are comfortable, sir.
MR. RONALD COLMAN: Good evening. First of all, I want to thank you all very much for this opportunity to speak because I was really very touched just sitting there. I realize how almost any opportunity that you ever have to speak in your life, you are always
somehow representing something, your work or your position in this, that or the other but it is very rare that just as a private citizen, just as an ordinary Canadian citizen, people just want to hear what you have to say. So I really think it is quite splendid. I have seen your pictures in the newspaper and it is nice to actually see you in person. So thank you for the opportunity. I feel that way particularly because I of what I want to say tonight because I think what I want to say is very much a minority point of view. Very often you think, well, you keep it to yourself because you think, well, who is really going to listen to you. So for that reason, particularly, I appreciate this chance.
There are four basic points that I would like to make and then I just will elaborate briefly on each of those four. However we feel emotionally about Canada, about unity, I think there is a reality that Quebec separatism will not go away. In fact, regionalism is strong in Canada and the reality is that it is as strong today as it ever was. It is not a matter of liking it or not liking it but it is just the way things are. There are British Columbia politicians who are talking separatism and we recently heard from politicians in Alberta who were so opposed to the Kyoto process that they said, well, if we don't like it, we will separate. So regionalism is not diminishing.
Secondly, I think it would be helpful to stop presenting the unity versus Quebec sovereignty issue as if it were just a black and white, either/or issue. I think there are more subtleties and more shades of grey. There are many realistic possibilities in between those two which I really would like to see as part of the debate and discussion and I would like to see more interesting discussions, for example, on whether Canada might be maintained as an European union style of confederation with independent sovereign entities cooperating economically, politically and internationally. In fact, we see the independent states of Europe getting closer and closer together and more forms of direct representation for Europeans than ever before.
The third point is that if Canada does separate, and if Quebec does separate, some time in the future, who knows what will happen. There is no need, I think, for the type of panic we saw last time. In fact, in Atlantic Canada I think there is literally nothing for us to be afraid of. In fact, there is potential opportunity as well in that type of development.
Fourthly, which flows from that, I think the time is ripe, as never before for going further with a notion of Atlantic and Maritime union.
So just a few words on each of those points and I will be brief. Opinion polls show that Quebec sovereignty is strongest among younger Quebecers and weakest among older residents. There is also no halt to the English-speaking exodus which really has been going on, off and on, for 20 years. Demographics alone make it very clear that Quebec separatism will not fade. I think it is unwise to take solace from slight temporary changes in the opinion polls.
British Columbians, for economic reasons, actually have far stronger economic reasons to separate than Quebec does and people out there very often talk this way. An increasing proportion of British Columbia trade is with the Far East and this underlying resentment that one hears all the time out there, that British Columbia prosperity is somehow being drained to us poor people at the end of the handout line in the East; this is not the way we perceive it but that is the way people talk out there. They say why can't we keep the benefits of our prosperity and our growth and our robust economy? British Columbia could function politically, economically and as a geographical unit. In fact, the language of separation has become so normal that Alberta politicians began to use it when they voiced their opinions about the global warming treaty.
The last elections, I think, showed how far the country is regionalized. It is very unusual, given the type of political system we have, the first-past-the-post constituency system to have this type of political result where we actually had a complete regionalization of the Canadian political reality with separate political Parties in each region. The federal Liberals, in the election result, have really become an Ontario Party. In short, regionalism is strong and it is stronger than ever in Canada and it won't simply be wished away by slogans even if we feel emotionally strong about unity. That is simply, I think, a geopolitical reality.
The second point is that I think it does a disservice to the intelligence of Maritimers and Canadians to phrase the unity sovereignty debate in simplistic either/or terms. A realistic scenario is the maintenance of Canada as an European union type of confederation, of independent states with friendly, cooperative, economic, political and defence relationships and a dual identity, just as Europeans feel allegiance both to their country, their allegiance to France, to England, to Germany, is not diminished by their allegiance to Europe. People don't feel less Italian if they feel a growing bond to Europe. European union members even coordinate their foreign policies and they generally make joint statements on foreign policy, even at the United Nations. Monetary union is not far off and Ottawa could, in the future, like Brussels, remain the headquarters of an European-style, directly-elected Parliament with a council of ministers and all the other relevant institutions. We don't have to give up Canada.
So my question is, why is this quite realistic, friendly, cooperative possibility not on the table? Why is this not part of the debate? I wonder, myself, not living in Quebec, whether this is what Quebecers mean when they talk about sovereignty association. The notion of sovereignty association seems to be an issue in Quebec but we don't really hear what that might mean in other parts of Canada. So I think that Canadians might consider this as one possible option. By the way, this is actually the literal meaning of the word confederation. Confederation literally means a union of independent sovereign states as opposed to a federation in which sovereignty resides in the centre. So we could actually become a true confederation.
Thirdly, and this addresses us just as Nova Scotians, as Atlantic Canadians. We have had many changes of policy and government. We have had Conservatives, we have had Liberals but we have never really, as a region, broken out of this chronic, economic backwardness in relation to Central Canada. We share many characteristics of developing nations, an over-dependence on primary products for export, shortages of venture capital; we get less than 1 per cent of the Canadian total. We have a much lower rate of research and development in science and technology. According to Statistics Canada, we get about 1 per cent of the Canadian total. We have a chronic brain drain of some of our best and brightest. Perhaps most seriously we have continuous capital flight from the region to the financial capitals outside the region.
Canadians have an image of Atlantic Canada at the receiving end of the handout line but how often do we hear the question asked, what proportion of Atlantic Region savings, insurance premiums and pension funds are re-invested in the region? Pension funds in particular flee to wherever the interest rates are highest. Our income levels are two-thirds of the national average and have been so, despite many changes of government. We have a higher percentage of citizens in this region below the low-income cutoff line than the rest of the country. These are familiar problems and they are chronic.
So I don't think it is disrespectful to ask the question at this time, how well has Confederation, in its present form, served the Atlantic Region? Back in the 1860's, Nova Scotians voted overwhelmingly against Confederation and the first national policy at that time really undermined the economic strength of this which was actually the richest region of the country. The Great Depression actually came to this province 10 years before it hit the rest of Canada and we had an out-migration of about one-third of our population. Sadly, this economic backwardness has bred a kind of psychological inferiority complex. I teach and I tell you I hear so often from my best students that to really make it you have to leave the province and it is very painful to hear that. I actually try to talk to them and say, no, we need you here precisely because you are the best and brightest but so many of those students feel that if you are going to make it in your field, you have to go do Toronto, Vancouver, somewhere else.
But there is another side to that story and that is that here, in this region, we have tremendous human strengths. We have caring communities, a rich, cultural heritage, a beautiful and amazingly still relatively unspoiled environment, an educated population and a kinder, gentler culture than it is possible to find almost anywhere in the world today. Those strengths don't necessarily have market value but they could be the foundation for a new pride in the region and the province. It might well be that Quebec's separation would bring out the very best in us and enable us to stand on our own feet more securely and firmly than we ever can in our present relationship with Ottawa. Perhaps we could be leaders here on a path of sustainable development in this region that could be a model for others.
So, finally I want to say there is no reason to panic, I think, at the possibility of Quebec's separation. Instead, the prudent path, since we actually don't know what the outcome and the future is going to be, we really don't know, the prudent thing is to prepare for that eventuality now. I think there is no better way to begin than by recognizing the natural bonds that exist within the Atlantic Region and building stronger foundations for self-reliance and regional cooperation. We can strengthen our economic foundations in many ways - encouraging investments that require more local inputs - I can give you examples on that perhaps in the questions, if you have any - sponsoring a buy Atlantic campaign, encouraging local agriculture and entrepreneurship, creating an Atlantic Region pension fund - which Quebec has already done there for themselves - so that savings generated here are reinvested here. If you have any questions on this, I would be happy to elaborate on those.
Above all, I think we can chart our own path to sustainable development, valuing and strengthening the quality of life here rather than simply pursuing the relentless, stress- inducing, global competitive model where capital always seeks the cheapest labour wherever it exists. We don't have to buy into that scenario.
In sum, without being against anyone else, without being for or against, we can actually foster a genuine sense of Atlantic Region cooperation, pride and, dare I say it, nationalism, in the best sense of the word. We could be the honest brokers that will move the country not towards greater confrontation between Quebec separatism on the one hand and an emotional unity campaign on the other but rather towards a cooperative model in which equal, independent partners, British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, perhaps Atlantica and the North join together in a true Canadian Confederation. Thank you very much for listening to this view.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Colman, for your very well put presentation. We were missing the second page but it was very easy to listen and follow with the way you presented it. So thank you. We will have it. Mr. Carruthers has a question.
MR. CARRUTHERS: A very simple question. It is clear from your presentation that you feel that there will be a devolution of the regions but I think you seem to imply that it is probably going to happen whether we want it or not. Given that you had the choice, do you endorse the idea of this true Confederation or would you rather see a federation with increased responsibilities with the federal government? If you had your druthers, what would you do?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Either/or.
MR. COLMAN: Let me first address the first part of your question. Right after the Quebec referendum, Pierre Trudeau made a statement in which he said that continued devolution and decentralization will actually produce the splitting up of Canada more surely than Quebec separatism. It was an interesting statement. At the same time, if you look at the
statements of particularly the Western Premiers, almost every meeting asks for more devolution of powers and more decentralization.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I am not asking you to justify the logic, I am asking you if your presentation is that it shall happen or whether your presentation is that you feel it would be in our best interests that it did happen.
MR. COLMAN: No, my presentation is the former.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you.
MR. COLMAN: Thank you for clarifying that. It is that it seems to be the direction and trend and it is not just an opinion.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Thank you. I guess there is a saying that a day can be lifetime in politics, that things can change so much. You are talking about B.C.'s separation and I am reminded of a newscast that I heard at suppertime about how the B.C. economy is starting to fail because of the problems in the Far East; with the decline of the economies over there, what is strong one day can be weak the next. One of the strengths of this country - which is also coming out with the Quebec situation and the recent crisis - the way in which, of course, Canadians have been pulling together to assist the communities there, as they did in Winnipeg, as they are doing in Ontario, as well, when those communities are in a bit of crisis.You can be up economically and you can be down economically at different times.
[10:00 p.m.]
There are many things that bind us that go beyond, I guess, what you can put on paper.
I just think of the European model that is being put together. Certainly, Europe has been fractured through most of its history and they are putting that aside for economic reasons.
Do you think - and talking about looking towards that kind of a confederation as a model, possibly, for our future - that it would be possible to put together a confederation in Europe where you have all the national diversities and all of the histories that would be strong enough to, I guess, overcome those differences and, therefore, to be able to protect standards, programs and so on, throughout the whole thing, throughout all of Europe, at what would be the appropriate levels, or do you think that, in Europe, the self-nationalist interests would prevail? I know I am not wording this well but if you can follow the convoluted logic that I am putting forward.
MR. COLMAN: The first part of what you said, I would not see - if we had a confederation of five or six independent sovereign regions, I would hope that there would not be the slightest hesitation in helping Montreal in a disaster. There is no reason that there should be any diminution of our warmth, our generosity, our mutual assistance. In fact, I think the European model is that there is more of that, not less, without any sense of - you know, I think we are more sophisticated as human beings than to have to choose between this nationalism and a larger commitment. I think we can actually feel strongly towards our village, our community, our province, our region and towards a bigger world at the same time, and be as generous. I don't see any reason for any less of that.
In Europe, I think that that is what we are seeing. We are not seeing any lessening of nationalism, sovereignty or pride in people's country. The French will always be French; the Italians will always be Italian, but at the same time, it does not preclude them moving closer together and cooperating more.
In fact, you talked about standards. Standards that have been set, for example, on environmental, social and human rights issues are pulling people up towards higher standards. The fact that new standards are being set is actually raising everyone. The fact that there is a European Commission on Human Rights is important for citizens of Greece, for example. There are other examples like that where it really, actually can work together.
I don't know if that addressed what you . . .
MR. HOLM: I appreciate that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Colman for coming, merci.
MR. COLMAN: Thank you very much for listening.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Clinton Desveaux, please come forward.
MR. CLINTON DESVEAUX: My name is Clinton Desveaux, I am a university student at Saint Mary's. I guess the reason I am here is because I am just concerned about the future of the country. It is the first time I have ever actually taken part in one of these types of meetings where you are dealing with government officials.
Mon nom est Clinton Desveaux. Je suis un acadien. Ma famille vient de Cheticamp, c'est un petit village ici en Nouvelle-Écosse. Tous les personnes parle le français.
First of all, I am going to make it quick because I know it has been a long night and everyone wants to get out of here. I think the Calgary Declaration is great the way it is. I don't mean any disrespect to any of the previous people who we have had up here nor any disrespect either to some of the people on the panel but I don't believe for an instant that
strengthening social programs, for instance, is going to keep Quebec in Canada. The separatists are not really concerned about social programs. They are concerned with creating a new country.
If you look back in history during the Quiet Revolution during the 1960's, when the Quebec culture sort of rose to prominence in Canada as a whole, it is because Ottawa became much more centralized during the Mackenzie King years and then the Pearson-Diefenbaker years. At that same time, as central government became much more centralized, we quickly saw a rise or a feeling of Quebec hostility towards Ottawa and in a sense you could say that it is the same type of hostility that exists in the West today towards Ottawa.
Regarding this unique society or this distinct society that is in the clause, I would just like to read something very quickly, and it is from a very prominent Canadian and it goes like this,
"I am going to make an appeal to you and your conscience. The rights of Canadians, whether of the parent races or otherwise, must not be placed on the auction block for political gain, or . . . be put up for grabs.'
I stood against the Prime Minister when he announced the 'two nations' idea. Laurier said it was wrong, Macdonald said it was wrong, Cartier said it was wrong and every Prime Minister and leading French-speaking representative throughout the years has said it was wrong. They didn't believe in two nations. They didn't believe in a state within a state or an associate state. Today, the Liberals and the NDP between them have appropriated support for one or both of these propositions. They have raised the bidding on constitutional problems, politically, to fantastic heights. You may not agree with me, but the theory that Canada is two nations can only lead to division and dissension and finally to de-confederation. If you bring it into effect, what about the six million of Canadians of racial origin other than the parent races?".
MR. MACEWAN: Diefenbaker. Is that Diefenbaker?
MR. DESVEAUX: Yes it is.
"Are they to have second-class citizenship? I shall never agree with that. Are we to have degrees of citizenship? Through the years, (and it is fifty years since I first spoke on this subject), I had just come out of the armed forces and was proud of the Canada badge on my shoulder strap - I asked, 'Let us be Canadians.' That has been the course I have followed throughout the years. Are we to have degrees of citizenship? Are we to have one or two degrees of citizenship in the two Canadas? Canada was divided into two
nations between 1841 and 1867. It was the failure of that concept that brought about Confederation. Macdonald, Cartier, Brown, all the other Fathers of Confederation, agreed that, to meet its failures, confederation into one nation was the solution.
The adoption of the two nations concept would segregate French Canada. I am not going to agree whether it's popular or not, to take the stand, to erect a Berlin Wall around the province of Quebec. That is what this proposition will do. Its proponents say that, to understand it, requires knowledge of the meaning of 'nation'; that while it is the same word in both languages, the meaning of 'two nations' is different in French than in English. Laurier said, 'This is one nation'. Cartier said, 'This is one nation.'. . . Bourassa, St. Laurent said the same, all through the years.
We are asked today to go back to the period between 1841 and 1867 to two Canadas. I plead with you not to accept a 'watered down' version of Liberal or NDP policy. This party cannot walk forward to that new Canada when Canadians, whatever their racial origin, are equal, if the Conservative Party starts on the course of walking backwards . . .".
Then I can go on about that. I will just skip this little thing here.
MR. MACEWAN: Tell us about it.
MR. DESVEAUX: It is dealing with various Louis' in the past.
"I would like to have spoken at length on this because I am pleading with you. I am looking into the hearts of Canadians everywhere. I know what discrimination is. I now how much easier it would have been if my name had been my mother's name. * But, from the earliest day when it was unpopular, I raised the standard of equality in this country. Let us be Canadians. Let us not deny equality to those whose surnames are not of the parent races. I don't believe that the true heart of French Canada wants the two nation idea. It is a minority who yell so loud they give the impression of being a majority.".
Now, the reason I read that and I wanted to stress the part about, "It is a minority who yell so loud they give the impression of being a majority.", is because . . .
MR. MACEWAN: Could you indicate the book you are quoting from?
MR. DESVEAUX: It is called the Night of the Knives, it is by a Member of Parliament, Robert C. Coates.
MR. MACEWAN: Robert C. Coates is no longer a Member of Parliament.
MR. DESVEAUX: No, a former member but the speech itself was given by former Prime Minister of Canada, John Diefenbaker.
Now, the whole reason I am discussing this - and I am not a Conservative either, I am going to bring up different points here - is that during the October 1995 Referendum, it was October 30th, to be exact, there was a letter that was sent out from Lucien Bouchard's Official Opposition Office on October 26th asking the Canadian military personnel from Quebec to switch sides to a new Quebec military. Just to let you know here, I am an economics student, I am a political science student as well, at Saint Mary's so I am pretty familiar with the Canadian Constitution and the BNA Act.
Now, asking the Canadian military to switch sides is considered sedition and that is Section 62 of the Code. In fact, everyone who willfully (a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force; publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force; or (c) advises, counsels or urges in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. That is Section 62 , Part I.
You are probably wondering what this has to do with what I was reading from the John Diefenbaker speech, that is because at the end of his speech he said, "It is a minority who yell so loud they give the impression of being a majority.".
Now, for the last 20 or 30 years, we have had one issue after another. I am sure we are all familiar with Charles de Gaulle famous, Vive le Quebec Libre speech. We have had the FLQ crisis. I have a cousin who goes to high school in Quebec and in their school books Quebec is referred to as being an independent nation, an independent country. So as far as I am concerned, part of the problem with the Canadian unity thing is that all of us in here who are federalists should be telling, whether it is western separatists, whether it is Quebec separatists, whether it is Maritime separatists or whether it is Ontario separatists, the reality of the situation. That leads to my next thing.
A few weeks prior to the referendum everyone was on cruise control. Everyone figured, it is okay, the federalists are going to win. Well, we came within 50,000 votes of destroying the country. The reason we came within 50,000 votes of destroying the country was because our elected representatives from all Parties refused to go into Quebec and tell the people of Quebec the reality of the situation. They were under the impression that there would be this new fiefdom; it is okay, you vote to separate and things will go on as usual. Well, we should have been laying down some ground rules. We should have said, you are going to lose your citizenship. You are going to lose your passport. There are going to be
borders erected. You are going to lose your Canadian government services. You are not going to receive all the Canadian benefits that you receive now. But none of that was done. None of it was done at all. Now, here we are, two or three years after the referendum and we are thinking, what can we do that is going to please the separatists in all parts of the country, to keep Canada united.
Well, the first thing we can do is start by telling them the truth, the truth of the consequences of what happens when you vote Yes. Now, it may be un-Canadian and it might not be very warm and fuzzy, and a very nice thing to do. However, we are dealing with people's lives throughout the whole country.
I noticed a couple of speakers were here tonight discussing other topics - various people who came here as guests to voice their opinions. Each person is entitled to their opinion, that is great, but I mean, for us to come here and talk about, for instance, increasing social spending or increasing the social programs because that is what makes Canada so unique from the rest of the world, that is all fine and dandy if we are going to talk about economics but we are dealing with hard core separatists.
For instance, the FLQ - I hate to have to remind everyone but Pierre Laporte was murdered. James Cross, a British diplomat was kidnapped. Now, increasing social programs is not going to please and is not going to appease these people.
I am sure there is a small percentage of the vote there that you can sort of sway them a little bit but we have 25 per cent to 35 per cent of a hard core vote that wants to separate and that is all there is to it.
Now, as far as some of the people that are undecided, I guess they refer to them as soft nationalists or they are not really too sure which way they are going to vote, I have to point, once again, to the 1960's and the rise of the Quiet Revolution. At that same time, we saw people in Quebec get upset with Ottawa, the same way as we have seen the West get upset with Ottawa.
I don't believe that centralizing Ottawa any more than what it is today is going to unite the country. If anything, I believe it is going to cause harm that we will never be able to recover from.
Atlantic Canadians, I think, should pull our heads out of the sand and should seriously start thinking about forming some sort of economic union with the other Atlantic provinces. I don't mean to sound all doom and gloom but you have to be prepared for the outcome. It is one thing to say, we want Canada to stay together, we love you and everything, but we should also be prepared to have some sort of back-up plan.
Part of the reason I say this is because the provincial government in Quebec right now is looking at lowering the voting age to 16 years of age for the next referendum. The reason they want to do that is because the young people in Quebec have been brainwashed into believing that secession is a good thing.
Now, we came within 50,000 votes of losing the last referendum and since then there have been over 60,000 Quebecers who have left the province. They have actually stated that the reason for it is because they do not want to live in a province that is in that much turmoil. If they were to hold a referendum today and the same people were to vote, we would lose the referendum by 10,000 votes.
Now, when you throw in the fact that you are going to have 16 year olds voting, because of the fact that they are very pro forming their own country - and I know this because I have family in Quebec - and as an Acadian, I talk to them constantly in their mother tongue, in French, and they tell me that they are going to vote to separate.
Now, when you figure out how many 16, 17 and 18 year olds who did not vote the last time, and they are going to vote the next time to leave, it is a scary situation. I mean, we as Atlantic Canadians should be prepared to form an economic union to do something about the pension plans, Medicare and social programs for Atlantic Canadians. It is unbelievable.
I guess that is basically all I want to say. I know you people here are different people from the different Parties. I really hope that you set aside your own political differences and your partisan politics, and we seriously start to consider the future of Canada and the future of Atlantic Canadians.
If anyone is going to suffer badly from a loss in a referendum, it is Atlantic Canadians. There is no sense in kidding ourselves into thinking that, oh, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are going to want to continue in Canada if Quebec is to leave and they are going to want to continue supporting Atlantic Canada. They are not going to want to.
It is not a nice thing to hear and I know it is un-Canadian but it is the truth. I think we should be prepared economically to deal with some of these problems. If anyone wants to ask me a question - I am not angry at anyone here either. It is emotional for me.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: It has been suggested to me not to use the word, passionate, because it is a word I had been using earlier on but I do have to say that it has been a very passionate presentation.
You have talked of two different scenarios, reaching Quebecers and suggesting to them the adverse effect separation would have on their way of life and, also, to talk to the rest of Canada on being prepared. Do you think it is better to get to the Quebecers from that point
of view and tell them how adverse it would be or try to reach them and tell them the benefits of staying in Canada? Which would be the best way to approach it?
MR. DESVEAUX: Well, I do not understand why we cannot do both of them. I am not saying specifically you but why is it that people say it has to be one or the other? A prime example of what I am saying is the Calgary Declaration, here it is now - all the provinces in Canada and the territories are in the process of negotiating the Calgary Declaration like we are, except for Quebec. We know that Quebec has a separatist government and we know that there is nothing we can do to please the PQ or its federalist ally, the BQ. What I would like to know is, why isn't the federal government in Ottawa taking the Calgary Declaration and just doing mail-outs to the people in Quebec? Why not say, look, this is what we think Canada is. It is not being done.
I feel the reason it is not being done is because what we are looking at here - not specifically right now in this room - are further negotiations to turn into another Charlottetown Accord or another Meech Lake Accord.
Now, I don't have a problem with saying to Quebec . . .
MR. CARRUTHERS: So your answer is to do both.
MR. DESVEAUX: Yes, exactly.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions from the members? I just want to clarify. You will not understand this either but to let everybody know this, this man is not my nephew.
MR. DESVEAUX: I just want to say, too, quickly, when I read that thing about the military, Jean-Marc Jacob is a Bloc Québécois MP, he was not charged for that. There was nothing . . .
MR. MACEWAN: He was the author of the letter. It was not Bouchard.
MR. DESVEAUX: No, I realize that.
MR. MACEWAN: You said it came from Bouchard's office. It did not. It came from the man you just mentioned.
MR. DESVEAUX: No, actually, the letter, itself, was written by Jean-Marc Jacob . . .
MR. MACEWAN: Right, now you have got it.
MR. DESVEAUX: . . . but the letter was sent out from Lucien Bouchard's office. You can actually call up the former Defence Minister, I think it was Collenette.
MR. CARRUTHERS: You don't have to defend yourself.
MR. DESVEAUX: Now, the reason I am saying this, a number of these things are going on. For instance, in textbooks, they refer to Quebec as being an independent nation. What is this nonsense? It is not an independent nation but no one says anything about that. They are allowed to propagate these lies.
There are a number of things that have gone on over the last number of years and no one says anything in return. We just sort of stick our heads in the sand and we refuse to have a rebuttal or to comment on anything of any of the propaganda that is going on.
MR. MACEWAN: We have a national unity minister by the name of Stephane Dion who is doing remarkable work 24 hours a day, virtually, to do the very things that you call for. Are you now aware of that?
MR. DESVEAUX: I'm completely aware of what Stephane Dion has done. He is the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister.
The problem there - and again, it is great that he is coming to the different provinces and he is trying to get the message to Quebec, but one of the things we have to realize as well is that the media in Quebec is completely different from the media in the rest of Canada. The media in Quebec, as well as many of the academics and the elite in Quebec are very pro-separatist. It is all fine and dandy for Stephane Dion to go in a scrum in Ottawa or in Quebec City at the Quebec Legislature and talk about the benefits of the Calgary Declaration but the fact of the matter is that the media, the professors, the academics and the elite are going to twist and reverse everything he has to say.
I really believe what the federal government should do is take the Calgary Declaration and mail it out to the individual homes and say, this is what the rest of Canada thinks; this is what we believe in; this is what we want. That is not being done. Unless they take the bull by the horns and they do that, we are going to be faced with the exact same crisis that we faced on October 30, 1995.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you very much, merci. (Applause)
MR. HOLM: I do not want to ask a question but I just want to thank you because I think that your presentation is not only very forceful but it does challenge us and others to think about options. I congratulate you on that.
MR. DESVEAUX: Well, I would just like to thank you for letting me come up and express myself.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Kevin Christmas. State your name and move forward, sir.
MR. KEVIN CHRISTMAS: My name is Kevin Christmas. I am with the Union of Nova Scotia Indians. I represent my family.
The worst thing you could do to an Indian is ask him who he represents - the last person that did that, when Cornwallis was pissed off that Jean Baptiste did not show up for a meeting in Halifax, he went down to the village and grabbed an Indian off the street and said, I'm going to make you Grand Chief. Now, you go take this treaty.
This man was scared and he ran back to his family back in Pictou. He told his family what this Cornwallis guy had said. So they took him to the warrior chief and the warrior chief took his hands and put them in the fire. He said, you go back and tell that man that we only deal with the Grand Chief. We only listen to the Grand Chief. We do not listen to anybody else. So it is very offensive to ask an Indian who he represents.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
That is taken from the United States Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
I have another quote.
"The people of the United States of America and of the Tribes inhabiting Nova Scotia, shall hence forth be at peace with each other, and be considered as Friends and Brothers united and Allied together for their mutual defense Safety and Happiness. That each party to this Treaty shall, and will consider the Enemies of the other as Enemies to themselves, and do solemnly promise and engage to, and with each other, that when called upon for that purpose, they shall, and will, to the utmost of their abilities, aid and assist each other against their public Enemies; . . .".
That is taken from the Watertown Treaty of Alliance and Friendship, July 17, 1776.
The documents referred to above are part and parcel of a whole series of diplomatic engagements to which my people were involved over time. Formal diplomatic relations were similarly entered into and concluded with France, Great Britain and the Vatican, and to a lesser extent, Canada, Portugal and Spain.
It is remarkable in the 21st Century to observe such extensive, formal dealings. However, the blend of history taught in the public school system so poorly portrays my people as to leave one with the conclusion that we were uncivilized, barbaric, ungovernable and desperate.
In many ways we are the beneficiaries of such ideology today. In today's terms, the politically correct among you will state that we are not yet ready for self-government, that a third order of government is ludicrous, that our rights and entitlements are contained in an empty box, that self-reliance for my people cannot be at the expense of your government's ability to tax, regulate and control the market place for my people.
[10:30 p.m.]
The government of which you are members and to which a legacy has been bestowed, has gone out of its way to steal our land, resources and identity. The hatred that our people experience each and every day, you are responsible for. There is no honour in your actions and words. The integrity of your system is suspect. Our experience is denial, obfuscation, mischief, adversity, bad faith, threats, ignorance, insincerity, indifference, marginalization, political and economic slavery, violence, disdain, racism and a general overall dislike.
Our systems of governance, both traditional and contemporary, are completely devalued. Our rights and entitlements, even when constitutionally declared and upheld, are simply ignored and belittled. The supremacy of Parliament and the Legislatures gives you the sense that you are immune from immorality, that all your laws are just, that your actions are above reproach, that we must comply to your utterances, legal or otherwise. It is unbelievable in this day and age that we should have to put up with such rubbish, but put up we must. To do otherwise means arrest, seizure, prosecution, public humiliation and/or private revenge.
Has any Nova Scotian been prosecuted for restricting, interfering or preventing the exercise of Mi'kmaq Aboriginal or treaty rights? Has any Nova Scotian ever been prosecuted for the theft, occupation or use of Mi'kmaq lands and resources? Has any government official been punished for the persecution of my people, including the Marshall Inquiry? Has any minister of this or other Governments of Nova Scotia been forced to resign due to public or private racist sentiments directed against my people? Has any minister or MLA been admonished by the Leader of a Party for unfounded anti-Mi'kmaq policy or neglect? Has any person in Nova Scotia ever been prosecuted for perpetuating hatred towards my people?
To all these questions you can answer no, not one. Yet, my people cannot go into the woods, onto the rivers, waterways, or even fish, without fear of persecution. Every time we are threatened. We are unable to sell anything, including our fish or trees, or even barter. There is no justification, ever, for the denial of our way of life.
My how times have changed. It is remarkable at this point in Canadian evolution that public officialdom is so manifestly anti-Indian. It can be stated rather sadly that had we known the level and degree of incivility that you currently practise, back in treaty times we would have broken our neutrality and sent you packing to where you came from. It is astonishing that your memory is so revisionist and your disdain is so ingrained.
What have we ever done to you to deserve this treatment? Why is public office a place for you to carry out your vendettas against us? Who are you offending but yourself? To what do we owe to stop this treatment? Should we simply let you continue to destroy my people's integrity and self-image? Should we allow your people to destroy all that we hold dear to our heart? Should we allow you to finish off our fishery, our lakes, our woodlands, our game, our lands, our livelihood, our traditional way, our petroglyphs, our history?
What has Canada done to protect us from you and your abusive policies? It is our contention that they, at the very least, owe us a fiduciary duty to protect us. Has the federal government ever prosecuted a provincial regulation or official for undertaking constitutionally repugnant measures? Has the federal government ever insisted that Nova Scotia extend federal-provincial development agreements to our communities, or even to modify some measures so as to better fit our cultural circumstances? Has the federal government ever joined with the province to deal systematically with the abject poverty in our communities? Has the province ever extended formal economic development assistance to our people?
Why is 100 per cent dependency acceptable as public policy? Why is 80 per cent unemployment acceptable? Why is zero capacity to raise public finances acceptable? Why do the provincial and federal governments insist on forcing our people to pay your taxes on our reserves? Why does the province insist upon remittances when they have no right to keep them? Why are staggering rates of ill health acceptable? Why will non-Indian employers not employ my people? What is so unacceptable about us that we are not considered fit to be employed? Why are such employers allowed to benefit from subsidies, favourable tax rates and high prices? Why are we prevented from getting the best deals for our people for their basic needs? Why must we depend upon your goodwill to survive as a people?
The fact that this country is so hell-bent on our annihilation should be a cause for concern. Why isn't it? Why is it easier to continue the abuse than to deal with it? Why are we blamed for your abuse? What would you do if you were in our shoes? Who would you ask for help? Why are our human rights so meaningless? Why should we care for you or forgive you? Where do we go to escape from you? How do we inoculate our people from your dis-ease? Why should we let you continue to hurt our families and, more particularly, our children? Why should we respect your laws? Why should we respect your children? Why should we respect your symbols, customs, institutions, traditions or governments?
We want our land back; we want you to pay for what you have damaged. We want you to pay for the land you are using. We want you to stop the abusive fishery and forestry policies. We want you to give us back what is lawfully not yours. We want you to stop making laws for us. We want you to cease and desist from selling our resources, including our gas. We want you to acknowledge our coexistence. We want you to stop violating our people and to leave us alone. We do not want perpetual dependency. We want to become self-reliant and free from Canada. We want you to stop forcing our people to subsidize their abuse through taxation. We want our share and we want it now. We want you to respect our governments, laws and authority.
Canada is a landless country. You are still just a concept. The land belongs to us. We agreed to share it with you and agreed that we will not sell it to anyone else but you, if we decide to sell.
With respect to the Calgary Declaration, it is bogus. The assumptions underlying it are false. Mikmakik is not Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. These five provinces are owned by my people and we want it back. You have no right to deny our lands, resources or benefits. If conquest is being contemplated, may I remind you that the first treaty signed with the United States involved my people. The treaty remains in effect and will be used if you continue in your genocidal practices. It is time we considered Canada as invaders and thieves. If necessary we will call on the United States to declare Mikmakik as a protectorate of the United States and, therefore, territory to which United States interests exists. We are the oldest continuing alliance with the United States and we need their help.
The Reform Party of Canada is responsible for the Calgary Declaration. This is why it is so offensive. They are so hateful, un-Canadian, irresponsible and unfit to govern, that the prospect of a Reform Government will set off a civil war. We tend to believe it was proposed as a means to take the unity pressure off the governing Liberals prior to the next referendum. But if Quebec feels the way we feel, I cannot blame them for wanting to leave. Maybe they would consider an alliance that would join the United States, Quebec and Mikmakik. Canada will exist from Ontario westward. This might not be so bad, for us the situation cannot get any worse. We have no treaties with Canada and we are not bound. We are free people. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Christmas, for your presentation. Are there any comments or questions? Thank you very much for coming forward, sir. (Applause)
Mrs. Louise Moores.
MRS. LOUISE MOORES: Good evening; I will be brief. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Louise Moores. I am a Quebecer, a Montrealer, and I have been living here in Dartmouth for ten and a half years. Being a Quebecer, having to leave Quebec in 1983 for Toronto then Nova Scotia, my family and I felt enriched by having experienced living in three provinces.
J'aurai aimer faire ma présentation en français, mais étant donner that I have no written thing for you people. I know that the translator cannot do it, so I will do my best in English.
HON. WAYNE GAUDET: On peuvent le faire, madame.
MRS. MOORES: Ah, oui?
M. WAYNE GAUDET: La-tu écrit?
MRS. MOORES: Okay. I wrote it in English, (Laughter) because I was so sure I couldn't do it.
My kids kept their French language all along and we are proud of it. We can see more and more why we need Quebec to remain in Canada. They need us and we need them. It is a province in the centre of Canada and lots of francophones from Quebec had to leave their province for work reasons. An example, the Armed Forces are all over Canada and all big companies with their offices, some of them had to leave Quebec because the office moved to Toronto, or wherever. I must say that now we have some in Halifax, which is very nice.
It is wrong to think that because you reside outside Quebec that you are for separation. The contrary, you are in a better position to see what is going on and what Quebec would lack or miss if they were to separate. Canada is a jewel and should separation occur, a precious stone will be missed from the jewel.
Having the chance and the joy to live in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia for ten and a half years, I feel privileged that I had the chance to continue to educate my kids in French if I so wish. This was a nice feeling, although we chose to keep French at home and let the kids mix with their anglophone friends. The only thing that I would ask the government for - and you might laugh, but I want to put it in because I know it is being recorded - is to have a Catholic francophone church in the metropolitan Regional Municipality of Halifax. We have no church at all for the Catholic practitioners. We have to go to the Carrefour du Grand Hâvre School. This school is overpopulated and we certainly believe that we could have our own church.
All denominations, from all religions, have many churches around this municipality, but we do not have one. We have the military base in Shannon Park which I have been attending and have been involved for nine and a half years. They are amalgamated with all the other different denominations and it is getting very urgent that we get our francophone church. There are 10,000 francophones in this municipality, according to Statistics Canada.
To give Quebec their distinct society is nothing new; it is known that Quebec was always mostly French, for the most part, and nothing new has come out of that. Quebec is as unique to their French language as Calgary is to their Stampede. Each province is unique and every anglophone from every province knows that. When people travel and go to Quebec for certain reasons, like for the Carnival that is coming for the winter, whatever season it is of the year, they know they will have to try to speak French, especially if they go to Quebec City or the little towns. But once you hit Montreal, everybody is still bilingual. All of my family is there. I go once or twice a year and I must tell you that there is no panic. It is a separatist government that is in power now, and like the young man said, with all he said I don't all agree but what he said about trying to get the young people to vote separation, this is easy to do. If you want to be elected, you go to every high school and tell the kids who you are and this and that and if you make a few funny comments, they will vote for you. It is a good way to go get votes. It is the same thing. We cannot get alarmed with this separation.
But what he said that struck me, it is not in writing, I am just making it up, it is the fact that if Quebec wants to separate, and they want, until that government is on it will come up and come up, it is true that people have to be educated, not just the young people. The young people, you tell them to do that, they will do the contrary. I am not saying that. I am saying the older folks. I will tell you something that I did at the last referendum. When MT&T put on, as a flash on the news, that everybody could take 8 or 10 minutes, no charge, to call somebody in Quebec, try to convince them to not vote for separation, I did my street. I must have done about 10 to 12 calls to my family, cousins, aunt. I called my Aunt Pauline, she had no idea how I could see it, because she has always lived there all her life, she never moved out. I said, Pauline, you cannot do that. We need you and you need us. This is what makes Canada. She said, you know, I never saw it that way. What we hear is what is on TV and what they want to tell but it is true they have to be educated. I would say, mostly people from 30 and older. Not the young people. Obliging people at 16 to vote, this is wrong, because at 16 years old they are still children. They are learning but they are still kids. Anyway, I made my point on that.
When I started to work in Quebec in 1956, you had to be bilingual and if you said to your employer you were bilingual, you were hired almost on the spot. I was and I started my career with the Bank of Commerce, saying I was bilingual. I could get around but I was not bilingual. I got a job and I had my career there for 20 years. So today when they talk of the allophones in Quebec, they mean anglophone and all the other nationalities that don't speak French. This is what they call allophones. A lot of people didn't know that. In Quebec, they didn't know that. My cousin who is my age didn't know that. So, I am saying that a lot of
allophones are in the Montreal region, a lot in Montreal and coming towards the west island, and have companies, are very successful, have big businesses, have money, they came in with money and are very successful.
I am from Pointe Claire, which is the west island part of Montreal, and every time I go to Montreal I go to the Fairview Shopping Centre, which is bigger than Micmac Mall and guess what? You go to the counter for cosmetics and if you go ask something in French, sometimes the girl will say, pouvez-vous, s'il vous plaît, répétez, because she didn't hear what I wanted and she is anglophone. So, let's not get alarmed with this separation of Quebec. There are a lot of anglophones in Quebec.
These allophone people were very much in Mr. Parizeau's way and he couldn't help it but say, if you guys had not been in my way, we would have won. Well, chapeau, because I hope they stay there. (Laughter) Because I am francophone, I am Quebecer. When I left Quebec I was 43 years old, I left with my two kids, my husband, it is his job that called him to Toronto for promotion. When you have young kids, you go where the money is. Then he had another promotion to come this way. He is from Nova Scotia, so what, a good thing, he came back home. He is from Yarmouth. So we came back here.
Another thing I want to touch briefly is assimilation. Since I have been living here, I have been involved at the Carrefour du Grand Havre, I have been a member of the Federation of Acadians of Nova Scotia, where the young lady spoke before me. They spoke about assimilation. Well, that I have heard since I lived here in Nova Scotia. It makes me wonder why we say that. We have education in French, we have social services, we have a newspaper and many other services in French and we have lots of associations that are French. I have been involved in French here like I have never been in Montreal. I am in a singing group at church, I mean, I am always involved in French something. So, we have to keep focused and we have to try at home to keep the language.
If we make an effort, I have done it, and I am not superior to anybody, I am not a super woman. I have kept my language, mind you, I was francophone, my husband is anglophone, that makes a difference. If the mother's tongue is French, it makes a difference. But nevertheless, my kids are both at university, Saint Mary's and l'Université Sainte-Anne. They say, mom, we will never move from here. We will find a job here. Our home is here now. They want to stay here, they love it. The pace is quieter than Montreal and everything. They like to go back to Montreal, all our relatives are there but they are going to stay here. Their education is going to come from here but they never lost their language. So assimilation is what you want to put into it. If you want to be careful, you can keep your French. If you want to let go as a parent when your kids are young, well, later on don't cry about assimilation then. I think you know something about that. We have talked about that on the phone when you were in Education.
So I was surprised to hear this young woman, Marie-Claude Rioux saying about French school. Carrefour du Grand Havre starts at four years old, where it is just a play thing but then they start at five years old and they go to Grade 12. I hope they get their new school soon because there are 550 places for 1,000 kids but nevertheless the kids are in an anglophone environment. Therefore when they come out of school they speak English, it is normal. But when they are in school and in class, they speak French. When they ask to go to the washroom, if they see a friend in the hallway, they will speak English to the friend.
We experienced that in Oakville, Ontario when we lived in Toronto for four years. My kids were at French school, we tried everything to keep the entire inside of the school French because it was a French school. We did all kinds of incentive things to try to make them speak French inside. We were successful but it was a lot of work because every week you would have to come up with something new. So I am saying that if we want we can keep our French here. There is school, education, there are all kinds of things in French. All I need is my French church. (Laughter)
Just to finish, I thought I would be funny, who knows maybe Ottawa may amalgamate one day and take Quebec and make it the historical city of Canada. (Laughter) You never know. I hope we keep it. Thank you very much. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mrs. Moores for coming forward. I spoke to you earlier and I am glad you were compelled to come forward. You have a unique perspective, if you will.
MRS. MOORES: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I think that is everyone who had indicated they wished to speak this evening. So I want to thank all of you for attending tonight. I know our numbers are dwindling as the hour is getting later and I noticed the media is now gone. I would like to express my appreciation to them for being here tonight as well. There are still some here. I do thank you for hanging in there.
Thank you all very much for coming. We have one more meeting tomorrow evening in Halifax and then our task begins. Thank you very much.
[The committee rose at 10:55 p.m.]
