SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Eleanor Norrie
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would ask the meeting now to please come to order. We will commence this evening's proceedings with the singing of O Canada. I would ask Ms. Joan Cunningham to come forward to lead us in the singing.
[The national anthem was sung by Joan Cunningham.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. Cunningham, a beautiful rendition. I had spoken to Joan earlier and we have had a number of young people across the province lead us in singing O Canada and I asked her what grade she was in and she said, a long time ago she was in Grade 3. So thank you very much, it was beautiful.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, bonsoir. On behalf of the members of the select committee, I would like to welcome you to this the 10th and the last public hearing that is taking place across the province on the issue of national unity.
I will introduce the members of the committee before we begin. On my right is the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Robert Carruthers, MLA for Hants East; Mr. Paul MacEwan, MLA for Cape Breton Nova; Mr. Ronald Russell, MLA for Hants West; Mr. Ernest Fage, MLA for Cumberland North; Mrs. Lila O'Connor, MLA for Lunenburg; and Mr. John Holm, MLA for Sackville-Cobequid. I am Eleanor Norrie and I am the MLA for Truro-Bible Hill and Chairman of the Select Committee on National Unity.
Before I move into tonight's proceedings, I want to just take a few moments of your time to thank all of the people who have been so generous with their time and expertise to help the committee go through the province and to make sure every Nova Scotian had an opportunity to be heard. The Legislature Committees Office staff, Coordinator, Mora Stevens, who most people who are making presentations would have talked to Mora on the telephone or her staff, Darlene, Cindy and Sherri; Intergovernmental Affairs officials: Executive Director, Alastair Saunders, and Research and Statistics Officer, Darryl Eisan; Acadian Affairs, the Executive Director, Paul Gaudet; Aboriginal Affairs, Director Allan Clark; the simultaneous translation support translators, Eddie Comeau and Richard Landry with technician Edwin Doucet. Also we had support from Communications Nova Scotia, Executive Director, Jim Vibert; the Editor and Public Relations Director, Maggie Marwah and Geoffrey Cursen who designed our web page for us.
Legislative Television have been helpful, Roger Bowman and Scott McTavish. They have been travelling with us across the province and we learned that Roger has a beautiful singing voice. He pinch-hit one night for O Canada and I want to thank Roger for that. Hansard, Rodney Caley and his staff and also, as I remarked, that we had a number of young people from across the province and individuals lead us in the singing of O Canada and I sincerely wanted to thank publicly each and every one of them for doing that for us because it has been a wonderful way to start the evening at each and every meeting.
I also want to thank the media for their devoted attendance at all the hearings across the province, both provincial press as well as the local media in each community that we visited. I particularly want to, myself, thank all the committee members for all their support to me, as Chairman, and for being very punctual most of the time as well as being diligent in making sure that every Nova Scotian had an opportunity to be heard everywhere across the province.
Most importantly, I want to thank all those across the province and you here tonight who are presenters and all those who submitted submissions by the other means of communications. We want to thank the communities that we visited, and their hospitality that was extended to each of us, to all of us in each area that we visited and to everyone who turned out, whether to be a presenter or whether to be there to show support for their love of Canada and support to the presenters and just to listen, because the purpose of these public hearings have been to listen to Nova Scotians' opinions on the Calgary Declaration and on the discussion paper that was presented by the five national Aboriginal organizations. So it is important that we had that support staff around us. It has made our job much easier and I thank each and every one of you who have been involved in this whole process.
There are copies available of the Calgary Declaration and of the Aboriginal paper at the back of the room on the table. There is also available simultaneous translation receivers for anybody who would require one this evening, just right over there on the table by the coffee. Please make use of them if you need to have translation.
With that, ladies and gentlemen, we move right in. I will not take any more of your presenting time. We would call on Annette Boucher, the President of the Carrefour organization. We would ask, as soon as you are comfortable to state your name and move right into your presentation, please.
MME. ANNETTE BOUCHER: Madame Norrie, membres dés committées, bonsoir. Mon name est Annette Boucher. Je suis la présidente de Conseil des ministre communautaire du Carrefour.
Le Conseil communautaire du Carrefour du Grand-Havre a comme mission de promouvoir l'épanouissement et le rayonnement culturel, linguistique et social de la communauté d'expression française de la municipalité régionale de Halifax.
Il accomplit sa mission en favorisant l'establissement et le développement d'organismes communautaires francophones, en assurant une coordination et en offrant un service de soutien par l'entremise de ressources humaines et materielles.
Le Conseil communautaire du Grand-Havre est composé de personnes élues par la communauté d'expression française de la région métropolitaine de Halifax-Dartmouth. Il rencontre ses objectifs à partir du centre scolaire-communautaire Carrefour du Grand-Havre à Dartmouth.
Les activités du Conseil sont variées et comprennent, entre autres, les services et les programmes suivants: bibliothèque communautaire francophone, garderie et prématernelle francophone, camp de jour et garde-scolaire, activités sociales, activités récréatives et de loisirs, activités culturelles, vidéothèque communautaire francophone et programmation d'école communautaire.
Ce soir, vous entendez les propos du Conseil d'administration du Conseil communautaire du Carrefour par rapport à la déclaration de Calgary.
Si vous me permettez la façon que la présentation est organisée, je vous lis l'embeller de la déclaration et par la suite nos commentaires à ce sujet là.
Donc, dans un premier temps : "Tous les Canadiens et Canadiennes sont égaux, et leurs droits sont protégés par la loi.".
Il va sans dire qu'un organisme comme celui que nous représentons accepte l'embeller de cet énoncé. Nésanmoins, il nous semble juste d'ajouter que la plupart des provinces ont énormément de changements à apporter à leur mode d'opération pour en arriver à assurer l'égalité de leur communauté minoritaire.
Depuis l'avènement de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, en 1982, la plupart des provinces ont perpétué la notion d'inégalité au sein de leur population en refusant systématiquement d'accorder aux francophones le droit à la gestion des établissements scolaires.
Il n'est pas surprenant alors que le Québec ait de la difficulté à se sentir reconnu dans la fédération canadienne quand la langue française ne reçoit pas l'appui des provinces qui lui permette de s'épanouir. Mentionnons que la Nouvelle-Écosse est l'une des rares provinces à avoir accordé la gestion scolaire à sa minorité sans poursuite légale. Le Centre communautaire du Carrefour a une vocation particulière d'assurer le maintien d'une culture d'expression française dans une région où l'assimilation se poursuit à un rythme alarmant.
Présentement, sans l'apui financier du gouvernement fédéral, la vie communautaire active que nous connaissons en français serait pratiquement inexistante puisqu'il n'existe, à ce jour, aucune entente avec la Nouvelle-Écosse pour appuyer notre mission.
Nous ne pouvons pas vous cacher que nous sommes quelque peu jaloux de nos voisins du Nouveau-Brunswick qui bénéficient d'un engagement concret de leur gouvernement provincial pour assurer leur fonctionnement.
Le deuxième temps : "Malgré les caractéristiques propres à chacune, toutes les provinces sont égales.".
Le troisième temps : La diversité, la tolérance, la compassion et l'égalité des chances qu'offre le Canada sonts sans pareilles dans le monde.".
Nous croyons qu'il est tout à fait normal - voire essentiel - que les provinces canadiennes conservent leurs caractéristiques particulières: C'est un des attraits qui rend le Canada si intéressant aux yeux du reste de la planète. Il fault donc accepter que des mesures distinctes devront être prises par certaines provinces pour assurer le maintien d'une culture propre à son histoire et à ses aspirations.
Cependant, le maintien de la langue française dans l'ensemble du pays est conditionnel à un effort supplémentaire de chacune des provinces pour en assurer le respect et l'épanouissement. Un minimum de services dans l'une ou l'autre des langues officielles du pays est essentiel pour que chaque citoyen canadien, peu importe sa province d'origine, se sentre véritablement chez lui au Canada.
Dans un quatrième temps : "Les peoples autochtones avec 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 le riche diversité du Canada.".
Le Canada est une mosaïque culturelle, ce qui le distingue de nos voisins américains. Une institution telle que le Carrefour du Grand-Havre, avec sa vocation communautaire, réjouit tout à fait cet énoncé. La province de la Nouvelle-Écosse a su reconnaître cet aspect si crucial de notre pays en établissant des partenariats avec le gouvernement fédéral pour permettre la construction de deux centres communautaires, à Dartmouth en 1991 et à Sydney, tout récemment.
Nous nous permettons de souhaiter que toutes les communautés acadiennes de la province puissent un jour bénéficier d'un tel outil de développement pour assurer leur pérennité. Le gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Écosse est, par ailleurs, de plus en plus conscient de l'importance de se donner des atouts importants dans la globalisation des marchés, d'où la nécessité de contribuer au maintien d'institutions à vocation culturelle.
Dans un cinquième temps : "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.".
Il va sans dire que la reconnaissance de cet énoncé, si son intention est de faire progresser le fait français, aurait des retombées positives pour le reste de la francophonie canadienne. Cependant, nous aurions souhaité que la présente déclaration, sans omettre l'essence même de l'énoncé, ait une porte plus générale qui aurait, du même coup, reconnu la réalité des francophones des autres provinces canadiennes ainsi qu'un engagement pour la promotion et la préservation de la langue française au pays. Tout effort de reconnaissance du fait français a l'extérieur du Québec ne peut qu'atténuer l'idée des Québécois que leur société est en danger d'assimilation au sein de la fédération canadienne.
"Si une future modification constitutionnelle devrait attribuer des pouvoirs à une province, il faudrait que ces mêmes pouvoirs soient accessibles à toutes les provinces.".
Au sein d'une fédération dont tous les membres se respectent, un tel énoncé est superflu et les questions nationales sont abordées pour le plus grand bien de l'ensemble de la collectivité canadienne. Il ne s'aurait être acceptable qu'un pays prenne des décisions qui pourrait nuire à l'une de ses composantes. Les avantages qui ressortent de la diversité culturelle du Canada devraient être au centre des discussions afin de se tailler une place enviable sur l'échiquier économique.
"Le Canada est un régime fédéral dans le cadre duquel les gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux et territoriaux travaillent de concert, tout en respectant leurs compétences respectives. Les Canadiens et les 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.".
Une seule réflexion nous vient à l'esprit pour commenter cet énoncé et conclure cette présentation: Tout est possible si les partenaires perçoivent un avantage à rester unis. Identifions ces avantages et fortifions nos acquis. Travaillons ensemble à reconstruire les bases moins solides et assurons à chaque Canadien et à chaque Canadienne une qualité de vie enviable sur tous les plans.
En gise de conclusion : Le conseil communautaire du Carrefour du Grand-Havre appuie la déclaration de Calgary. Nous constatons dans ce document une reconnaissance des besoins particuliers du Québec comme élément essentiel a l'unité et d'ici on parle de l'unité canadienne. À titre de francophones en Nouvelle-Écosse, nous envisageons aussi le potentiel pour notre épanouissement collectif. Enfin, nous voyons ce document comme étant le début d'une reconstruction solide de notre fédération canadienne pour nos enfants et pour les générations à venir.
Madame la présidente je vous remercie de votre temps. Et certainement s'il y aurait des questions, il me ferait plaisir de les répondres.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I am going to ask you if you would accept them in English?
MME. BOUCHER: Certainement.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much for your presentation. Any questions from the committee? Mr. Carruthers?
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Just one question. There have been other presenters that have indicated that there has been an assistance to the French student in Nova Scotia - at least some improvement in the teaching - in French - in our schools because of the issue raised in Quebec over the last few years of its possible separation. Others have taken the opposite view that it has been harmful in Nova Scotia to the increase in teaching our French Nova Scotians. Do you have a view?
MME. BOUCHER: Est-ce que je peux vous répondre en français?
MR. CARRUTHERS: Oui.
MME. BOUCHER: Dans un premier temps, nous comme conseil d'administration du conseil communautaire, nous sommes par affilier directement avec l'enseignement qui se passe d'en l'école, qui se situe au Carrefour du Grand Havre.
Deuxième, notre population, celle que nous décernons, disont qu'elles est composées de francophones qui viennent de partout au monde. Nous avons les québécois, nous avons les néo-écossais, nos amis francophones des autres provinces canadiennes, ainsi que nos amis français de l'extérieur. Pour nous l'apprentissage dans les écoles, pour exposés ses élèves à une variété de culture, ne peut que les faire grandir comme des individus et nous, évidement, nous sommes d'avis que ce n'est pas quelque choses de mal ou du tors qu'on fait à ces jeunes là. On est entrain de les épanouir et les former comme des individus complets celon nous en les faisant partager ces cultures de tout les entités francophones.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Thank you. I apologize, my ability to read French is much better than my ability to speak it, so I will also pose my question in English.
In your presentation, you pointed out that, really, all provinces - not only the Province of Quebec but, also, all provinces have a responsibility to promote the preservation of the French language within the country. We, of course, as a committee have the ability to recommend changes to the accord, or to the resolution that would appear before the House.
My question, really, is, would you like to see an addition or an amendment of some sort to the Declaration that would go before the House that would suggest that Nova Scotia, for example, should have a responsibility to protect and enhance the French language within this province?
[7:30 p.m.]
MME. BOUCHER: Est-ce que vous me permettez de répondre en français aussi? Évidemment, le texte comme vous l'avez entendu et comme nous l'avons préparer, et que certainement nous aimerions, surtout ici en Nouvelle-Écosse, voir des garanties additionnelle de ceux-là que nous avons déjà pour qu'est-ce est du respect de la langue française et l'épanouissement de la culture et de la langue. Il sera souhaitable que tous les provinces canadiennes appuis et ajoute à la déclaration de Calgary pour faire de sorte que les francophones dans ces province là se sens appuyer et ont la base pour laquelle grandir d'avantage. Pour cà qu'est de la Nouvelle-Écosse, il nous fera enormément plaisir de voir la Nouvelle-Écosse inscrit dans cette déclaration au sens que la Nouvelle-Écosse s'engage de voir qu'il y aura cette appui pour les francophones.
Donc qu'a répondre à votre question, oui, on aimeraient bien voir une amendement comme celui-là que vous suggérez et on vous appui dans vos démarche dans ce sens là, si vous jugez que ces quelque chose que vous voulez poursuivre.
MR. HOLM: Thank you. Merci.
MR. ERNEST FAGE: Just in that regard with Mr. Holm's intervention there. When you say you would support does that mean you would support in those situations or in this county and area, unilingual or bilingual or I am not gathering exactly the support that you were conferring with Mr. Holm that you would be in favour of?
MME. BOUCHER: Il est certain que nous comme francophones, ici dans la région métropolitaine, que nous sommes d'avis que la façon d'épannouir en notre langue et notre culture, est de participer activement dans des activités en français. Nous sommes entourer de la communauté qu'on est minoritaire et la majorité est anglophone. Donc pour nous, il est essentiel que nos activités culturelles et linguistiques ne se déroule qu'en français et pas dans les deux langues, parce qu'on est déjà en voie d'assimilation, et la seule façon qu'on peut reprendre et se sentir appuyer, c'est si qu'on peut vivre en français notre culture et notre langue.
Donc on n'appuyent pas pour la notion de nos activités bilingues. On appuyent nos activités francophones et puis tous modifications, ou amendement que vous voudriez proposer nous sera acceptable, si qu'on consentrer sur l'aspect en français et non l'aspect bilingue parce que, pour nous, c'est juste l'aspect francophone qui va nous permettent de vivre comme communauté. Donc j'espère que ça clarifit un peut vos inquiètudes à ce sujet.
MR. FAGE: Merci.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much for being with us here this evening. Merci beaucoup.
MME. BOUCHER: Merci. Bonsoir.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We would ask Dr. Donald MacIntosh, President of the Halifax Canadian Club and Ms. Linkletter to come forward. State your name when you are comfortable, sir.
DR. DONALD MACINTOSH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Donald MacIntosh and with me is Dr. Zilpha Linkletter. We come representing the Canadian Club of Halifax.
First of all, thank you for hearing our submission. I would like to spend a moment just with a word about the Canadian Club so that it is understood. The Canadian Club of Halifax is one of 50 such clubs across the country which together are the Association of Canadian Clubs. This is a movement that goes back to the late 1800's, it started in Hamilton and it spread across the country. It is a non-political organization. Its purposes are to foster an interest in public affairs in Canada; to promote Canadianism; to cultivate an attachment to
Canadian institutions; and to promote Canadian unity. There are such clubs in most of the larger cities and bigger towns across the country.
We represent the Halifax Club only, we are not speaking for the Association of Canadian Clubs. But as the Halifax Club, we represent a group of Canadians who are very interested in the past, present and above all, the future of Canada. We feel that it is imperative that Canada continue to evolve as a united country and a caring society.
To address the Calgary Declaration. At the outset we welcome the leadership of the Premiers and the other heads of government who have set out these principles and attributes. We regret that Quebec was not party to that Declaration.
We welcome the moderate tone of the Calgary Declaration. We believe it will contribute to developing the attitudes that permit accommodation within the country but we don't presume to understand all the constitutional implications.
We would like to comment on several points within the Calgary Declaration. The first part, Parts 1 and 2 deal with basic citizens' rights and the concept of equality. Part 3 speaks of equality of opportunity and we would simply note that equality of opportunity is desirable but elusive in our society and one can't really expect to see real equality of opportunity. There are too many deterrents in terms of education, social status, financial status, a variety of things that really mean that equality of opportunity is elusive.
The fourth part deals with what might be called collective rights and notes the multicultural citizenry and diversity of the country, which is an important part of our society.
Part 5 defines the unique character of Quebec society. It is defined in terms of its French-speaking majority, its culture, its traditions of civil law and it says that Quebec is fundamental to the well-being of Canada. We support this. We find this an acceptable position. We note that we in Atlantic Canada, if Quebec were to separate would be most at risk in the country and our position would surely be weakened and very tenuous in the future.
We note too that recognizing the distinguishing characteristics of Quebec society need not constitute an unfavourable comparison with other provinces. We consider the rights of English-speaking Quebecers and Quebecers of other origins would be protected under Parts 1, 2 and 6 of the Calgary Declaration and these several parts should also give reassurance to those opposed to special recognition of Quebec.
Part 7, deals with the relationships of governments and that perhaps is where we want to make to make some points. We know that it is necessary to have a division of powers to govern our land. Like the Premiers we want governments to work cooperatively to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of the federation but we would like to add the word "equity" to that notion. We want governments to work cooperatively to ensure equity along with
efficiency and effectiveness. We believe that that is an important characteristic of our federation.
The social programs and the health programs are dependent in part on federal transfer and equalization payments. We would argue for a strong national government to ensure national standards in the country. We want a strong national presence in our social programs. We worry that the budgetary restraints threaten the social system.
We note that the Premiers from some of the provinces have differing views on the role of the federal government. We would support the notion of a strong national presence in order to maintain our social programs. When there are substantial policy changes aimed at fiscal decentralization we worry about erosion of important social programs and we would argue that deterioration of the social programs will undermine national unity.
In summary then, we support the document. We recognize the unique character of Quebec. We argue for equity and national standards, particularly in relation to social programs. We believe we require a strong national government and erosion of standards will undermine national unity. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci. Thank you very much. You will entertain some questions?
DR. MACINTOSH: Sure.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Dr. MacIntosh, I take it that you feel that the present devolution of powers from the federal government to the provinces has gone far enough and there should be no further devolution of those powers to the provinces?
DR. MACINTOSH: I think that is correct. Could I ask Dr. Linkletter to comment perhaps on some of that, but yes, I would agree with that.
DR. ZILPHA LINKLETTER: On that question, I would simply add that the devolution should be selective. At the present time there is a spate of program reviews taking place in Ottawa and the main question as it occurs to us in that regard, is that over the past several decades there has been a considerable downward shift in federal clout, if I may use that word, so that if there is to be further devolution it needs to be very careful, from our point of view. Because our social programs are supported by shared cost arrangements but they are also supported by the equalization payments and if the federal government is not able to carry the part of the funding that will bring services up to reasonably close to a national average, we would be in trouble.
MR. HOLM: Maybe if I could just sum it up then, because my question was very similar to what Ron just asked and that is, is it fair to say then that part of the concern would be that the further devolution could result in less equity of programs and services across the country if devolution goes about without means to ensure that there are national standards for the programs and services to be delivered in the country?
DR. LINKLETTER: Precisely.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Just in closing, just for a simple answer, perhaps, if there was, in the Calgary Declaration, an addition or something added that would ensure a strengthening or maintaining a strong central government, do you think it should be spelled out maybe a little more strongly within the Declaration? Yes or no.
DR. MACINTOSH: I think we do think that but it would be wise to have it explicit.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, I thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you for coming. Merci.
DR. MACINTOSH: Thank you for hearing us.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Elliott Richman. Mr. Richman is accompanied by two interpreters, Bonnie-Lynn Barker and Lynne Turcotte-Johnson. I would ask, while Mr. Richman is getting settled, if anyone here tonight would like to have translation from English to French, would you like that? There are some people who would like to have translation from English to French. Would you provide them with a device for translation?
State your name and move forward with your presentation.
MR. ELLIOTT RICHMAN: My name is Elliott Richman. Good evening. Although I actively volunteer for a number of non-profit organizations, I am here to present my views on the Calgary Declaration as a private Canadian citizen. I wholeheartedly support the first point of the Calgary Declaration, "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law.". Governments and businesses must conduct their daily lives with this one point foremost in their minds and actions. Unfortunately, this never was, and still is not, the actual case. Both the Canadian Charter of Rights and provincial human rights codes are extremely weak, unenforced and without teeth.
Both businesses and governments regularly violate human rights and consider the fines, if any, thereby induced as a normal operational cost of doing business. Complaints brought forward to provincial and federal Human Rights Commissions take forever to be heard and to be resolved.
Example one. The Warrens and Eldridge were denied sign language interpreters in medical settings in 1990. The British Columbian Government successfully argued before the Supreme Court of British Columbia that since medical interpreting services and cab fares to and from hospitals were not covered under the provincial health care plan, the provincial government was not responsible for providing either. Deaf Canadians simply cannot communicate with health care providers without interpreters and, thus, do not receive the same level of care as their hearing counterparts. This was, fortunately, rectified in deaf Canadians' favour by an October 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision. Now, deaf British Columbians may exercise their rights to medical care to exactly the same extent as their hearing counterparts.
Example two. The Parliamentary Channel now televises House of Commons debates, making them more accessible to more and more Canadians. They are now empowered to contact their own MPs with concerns of their own and even to suggest ways in strengthening Canada's status and stature in the eyes of the world. Unfortunately, deaf viewers are not able to follow any debates since they are not interpreted or closed-captioned. Deaf Canadians are thus deprived of a basic human right, to become politically involved in Canada's daily life.
Example three. I find it disheartening to read in yesterday's Globe and Mail that there are now federal proposals requiring future self-supporting immigrants to be proficient in English or French. How can the federal government expect potential deaf immigrants to be or to become proficient in either English or French when its own Canadian deaf population, on the average, has not even mastered Grade 5 English?
I could go on for hours, describing how businesses and governments routinely violate human rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and in provincial human rights codes. I hereby submit to you that the Canadian Confederation will be strengthened once all existing human rights codes are actually and finally implemented. By that I mean more resources, both human and financial, must be given to tribunals or commissions. Cases must be heard in a more reasonable - i.e. shorter - time-frame, say, six months at the most.
Penalties for human rights violations must be made stiffer with higher financial fines and even include penal sentences. Concentrate on implementation, not inaction. Leave the Constitution as is and amend the Charter of Rights as needed. Do not enact more Acts or amend existing Acts without implementation. Give all existing human rights codes more teeth.
Allow me to re-read the first point. "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law.". Allow me to quote from Star Trek. Make it so. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Merci, Mr. Richman. Are there any questions from the committee members?
MR. HOLM: I think it was very clear.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fage.
MR. FAGE: Good evening, may I call you Elliott?
MR. RICHMAN: Be my guest.
MR. FAGE: A small reason on my part. I have a nephew who is severely hearing impaired and his name is Elliott also. You have made some fine points with your examples of how, when we are trying to be just and show equity and caring that there are still voids or openings where everybody has some problems. With your presentation, are you dealing solely in a national context or are you dealing with provincial responsibilities as well, in your presentation? Do you see that both of them need adjustments in the future or are we dealing primarily with the federal context that needs adjustments to look at these imperfections?
MR. RICHMAN: My answer is simply that both federal and provincial human rights codes must be implemented, both. Right now, neither is.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming forward, sir. I appreciate you being here this evening.
MR. RICHMAN: Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I will call Dr. Jeffrey Norrie, private citizen, to come forward. We are passing out copies of your presentation. As soon as you are comfortable, you can state your name and begin your presentation.
DR. JEFFREY NORRIE: My name is Jeff Norrie and I am speaking as a private citizen this evening. Madam Chairman, distinguished committee members, fellow Canadiens and Canadiennes tous. It is indeed a pleasure for me to speak with you tonight as a private citizen concerned about the future of our country and of our efforts to find middle ground in what only can be regarded as a polarizing issue.
I realize I only have a few minutes to speak with you but I think I should briefly describe my background to show why I feel I may, in all humbleness, have something to contribute on the subject. I am an agricultural scientist by training. My family comes from the Truro area and has deep and long-standing roots in Nova Scotia as Madam Chairman may be aware. So I feel confident speaking as a proud Nova Scotian and a proud Canadian. From 1989 to 1995 I was given the opportunity to study and later work at Laval University in Quebec City. I completed the usual French immersion programs, night courses, a few day courses, as well as my regular ag courses and research. At the same time, my wife and I developed a strong circle of friends within the university community and beyond and were well assimilated into the French community. Needless to say, we were privy to many a discussion about French-English relations. From Lake Meech to Charlottetown, I have had
healthy arguments about them all but even as an admitted federalist, I do not feel ignorant to Quebec's desires and concerns over self-determination and their feeling that they must protect their language and culture. I feel we only disagree on how to get there.
I think it is important to mention that I did not head to Quebec as part of a blossoming political career, to do the French thing, or to do my part for national unity. I did it because I wanted to and I had the opportunity to study agriculture. It was no more complicated than that and although we have been back in Nova Scotia for over two years, a good chunk of my heart still remains in Quebec.
[8:00 p.m.]
But the question of the day is what do I think of the Calgary Declaration? Well, there are several points, I think, that are important to address. Technically I am concerned that Number 1, declaring the equality of all citizens, can be in direct conflict with Number 5, which could give Quebec constitutional powers to protect their language and culture but I will clarify my position in a moment. I think the main problem with such a declaration is that it is not regarded as much of a sacrifice on the part of English provinces. Quebec leaders have made it clear that they want it to cost something substantial, distinct society and the powers to enforce that status. Anything less is unacceptable. Hardliners, who often set the agenda, are making it appear that acceptance of anything less would be anti-Quebec. This view is often promoted in the press and who can argue with someone who buys his ink by the barrelful?
It frustrated me while in Quebec that the politicians and journalists didn't seem to present the facts and arguments clearly and responsibly. Many average Quebecers still believe separation would change little in their relationship with Canada, such as their passports, their currency or even their health care status. So who explains this to them? The politicians? Community and business leaders? Maybe the journalists? I think it has to be all of the above but if all the facts and estimates are presented in an unbiased fashion and all of the repercussions of separation are explained, they might not win their referendum. So the game continues.
The hypocrisy was never more clear than on referendum night when Bouchard declared to respect the outcome of the referendum and then promptly turns around and pledges to continue the fight for separation. Where did the respect for the people's choice go? I feel he probably left it in the same glass that Parizeau was drinking from. Now Parizeau's comments on referendum night only echoed what many Quebecers feel, that minorities are preventing them from reaching their destiny. How, then, can the separatist government control the minorities? Through immigration? Quebec already has their own immigration policy and a substantial control to influence the ethnic make-up of the province, but therein lies a trap.
The Quebec birth rate at 1.58 or under 1.6 anyway, is one of the lowest in the civilized world and has been for a while now. So they depend on immigration just to maintain the population. But where are the immigrants coming from? Many are coming from countries with a French connection and are the very visible minorities the government, and many Quebecers, blame for their referendum woes, which leads to the next question. What is a Quebecer? Is an immigrant a true Quebecer? Is an English person living in Quebec? There is a widespread belief that the referendum should be voted upon by native-born Quebecers only. Pure laine. This borders on racism, in my opinion.
Federalism is often portrayed as anti-Quebec within Quebec and this sentiment is slowly becoming entrenched in their culture. Young children are being taught at an early age that there is a difference, a significant one, between being Canadian, Québécois or Québécoise. There were cases where young children were punished for speaking English during recess at some schools. What kind of message does this send to their young minds, the next generation?
There has to be a voice of reason somewhere. The Quebec language laws have been assailed by both the federal government and the United Nations, all to no avail. You don't build up one language simply by denigrating or repressing another. Try to convince Mme. Beaudoin of that. The remedy is simple. You promote French by using French. The same with culture. Our Acadian population is testimony to that spirit. Their culture is strong because they promote it and celebrate it. And then there is the emotional factor. As a participant in the Spicer Commission discussions a few years ago, in my group I was one of three federalists debating 13 nationalists. One lady, about 75 to 80 years old, said all I want to do is to die a Quebecer in my own country. There was no rhyme nor reason to her argument, just pure emotion, and how do you argue with that?
Then again, who do you negotiate with? Do you expect to negotiate an agreement on national unity with a government whose agenda is focused on separation, whose laws officially suppress the language of 70 per cent of Canadians and over 95 per cent of North Americans? Are you going to give these same leaders the constitutional authority to continue to override the same freedoms, such as choice of language and culture, that thousands of Canadians have died to protect over the years? Are you going to have faith in Lucien Bouchard's ability to work towards harmony with his history of political opportunism? He has worn more hats than a tester in a Stetson factory. On the other hand, Jean Chretien is a political pariah within Quebec due to his history with Trudeau and the perceived betrayal in 1981. So who represents each so-called side?
Is it reasonable to expect that, if given the constitutional power to do so, Quebec's present intransigence regarding language liberties will be lifted if the Calgary Declaration is invoked? I don't think so. It is my opinion that a further entrenchment of their powers will result in continued minority repression within Quebec borders, all under the guise of protecting their language and culture. With entrenched powers, I think the well-worn path
down Highway No. 401 to Toronto will continue to see heavy traffic. I understand there must be a compromise but formulating a policy which puts collective rights ahead of individual freedoms is very tricky business.
Am I willing to live with the consequences of a Quebec rejection? That is a very good question but at least the country wouldn't be living a lie. As Conrad Black pointed out in 1992, if separatists allow dissenting municipalities to remain in Canada, revert portions of their Northern sections back to Canada, assume their fair share of the national debt and realize that current trade agreements would be renegotiated, then, hey, we would be crazy to hold them back.
I feel a description of our country is best presented in a constitutional preamble. It has always been my opinion that if you crystallize a specific group as being distinct and give them the power to enforce regulations to protect that, then individual rights violations are inevitable. The term unique, distinct, different and even special are all exclusionary. Is that what you want your Constitution to magnify, the differences? You see we are all distinct. Some people have even called me distinct but I am not so sure it was a compliment and I certainly don't want to see it in the Constitution.
Mutual appreciation and respect for each other is the key to resolving our unity woes. Quebecers have to learn about life outside Quebec and English Canadians have to learn about life inside Quebec. With all due respect to Mme. Sauvé, her quasi-justification for distinct society that Quebecers speak differently, eat differently and make love differently is a bunch of garbage, even though the thin walls of our Quebec apartment often made me wonder what was going on next door. We must recognize that we have much more in common than we have differences.
As a friend recently reminded me, the underlying theme that gets buried time and again is that we all want the same things in life - love, family, health, employment, security, education, respect and liberty. There is little argument here. In short, I love Quebec. I have a son born there. I love Nova Scotia. I have a son born here and I love Canada because both of my children were born there. I still have many friends in Quebec and I miss them. Will I return? Given the opportunity I would love to and there is nothing I would like more than to continue to promote Canada from within the heart of nationalist country.
But, for national harmony to exist, there has to be a fundamental feeling that each side is fortunate to have the other. I just hope that leaders with large egos and hasty political agendas don't gamble and lose with the lives of a lot of innocent people but then again, governments are into gambling now, aren't they? Thank you very much for your time.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much.
DR. JEFFREY NORRIE: De rien.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions from the committee members? I think it has been a very emotional presentation and it is very difficult to respond other than to say that I think you have worn your heart on your sleeve tonight and I think it gives us all a good . . .
DR. JEFFREY NORRIE: Thank you, my pleasure. It has been a pleasure to be able to speak about this.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Ms. Greta Murtagh.
MS. GRETA MURTAGH: I must first apologize for a couple of typos. I used to be a teacher but sometimes I forget.
Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Greta Murtagh and I am a resident of Halifax and a retired educator.
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: Cravatski are you?
MS. MURTAGH: No.
MR. MACEWAN: Hrvatska?
MS. MURTAGH: No. Next February 1st, I will have been in Canada for 41 years. I shall tell you a little about myself so that you can better understand my motives for coming before you. It is not easy to talk about oneself in public but no risk is too big if it might help save my country in any small way.
My parents and I came to Canada from Croatia - it used to be Yugoslavia then - via the Middle East. I was a child in Zagreb when the Second World War began and my father was hauled off to a concentration camp in Germany. I don't need to tell you about the horrors of those events and the memories and the trauma that stay with the survivors and their spouses and children.
While we were in the Middle East my father waited to come to Canada for eight years while I very fortunately received a bilingual education in a French convent school. My parents chose Canada because it was the exact opposite of everything that we had ever known, a country where two cultures had carved out a peaceful life in the wilderness, so we thought. This sounds funny today but that is what the immigrant of 1957 really thought. Oh, and the streets were paved with gold, of course. By the way, we found out that was not true right away. (Laughter)
Never again would I or my family experience the darker side of misguided nationalism which included ethnic cleansing, cultural and linguistic apartheid and violence. Canada seemed a haven of civility and hospitality. After all, I had seen the movie, Rose Marie, and everybody seemed to get along and the Mountie was gorgeous. I was just a teenager then.
A few years have passed since then and now I have children and grandchildren of my own. The horrors of my childhood had receded into history and my husband and I were busy parenting, pursuing university studies and working at challenging jobs. I have worn many hats since then and I have met Canadians of all stripes in all parts of Canada.
During my tenure on the executive and as President of the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers, I had ample opportunity to discuss the unwelcome political aspects of our volunteer efforts. No matter how much we tried to emphasize the pedagogical and motivational reasons for the continued existence and growth of our programs, and for the learning of French per se, there were always some elements in our society who accused us of "giving into Quebec". I am sure you have heard them too.
Then the break-up of Yugoslavia happened. Then there were continuous mini wars in the Middle East. The uglier face of misguided nationalism was showing its face again, bringing back bad memories. The sight of Canadian peacekeepers toiling in uncharted territory in these places made me proud to be called Canadian and gave me hope that these soldiers would never be deployed in Canada for reasons of misguided nationalism. Misguided nationalism usually breeds in distrust, economic collapse, misery and avarice, among others. Consider the opposite of those expressions and they are: trust, a successful economy, comfort and generosity.
I have carefully read the Calgary Declaration. I have also read the Meech Lake Accord in 1987 and, again, lately. See, I am a retired teacher and I have time for this. My French Canadian friends and colleagues in Quebec tell me that, had that accord been accepted then, we would not be standing before you today. My French Canadian colleagues outside Quebec tell me that their rights were better protected in that document than in the Calgary Declaration, and so are the anglophone rights within Quebec. My sense is that the Calgary Declaration needs more additions, some precision. While consensus will probably be an impossible task, it must not be reached at the cost of producing a watered down, bland document, so general that it is meaningless.
Where does Nova Scotia stand in all of this? We, with only 3 per cent of Canada's population, have the most of all Canadian provinces to lose in a possible break-up of Confederation. You might not like to hear this but we must remember that while Nova Scotia was the first separatist province - you know, we voted against it first - we should now be a champion of it, not only for geographical and economic reasons but because years of cooperation and ties created by family relationships, business partnerships and common goals reached through peacekeeping and world wars.
Je sais que la population néo-écossaise n'est pas trop préoccupée par le sujet en question. Mais il ne faut pas oublier que tous les efforts dans le domaine socioculturel, économique, médical et pédagogique de cette province ne mènera pas à grand-chose si on n'a pas de pays, si on se marginalise comme un pays du Tiers Monde. Allez donc négocier jusqu'a l'an 2000, si c'est néccessaire. (Il n'est pas le temps de dire, c'est à prendre ou à laisser.) N'oubliez pas que les enjeux sont trop sérieux, l'avenir de notre province trop en danger.
J'aurais voulu terminer ma présentation par des images qu'on a tous vu pendant les deux dernières semaines; des soldats canadiens dans les rues de Montréal et la rive Sud, arrivés par invitation. Si il y encore des gens qui discutent encore d'un "plan B", qu'ils s'arrêtent là; voilà le plan B, voila comment les Canadiens répondent au désastre qui touche nos concitoyens. Merci de votre attention.
I would be glad to answer questions. This has been, emotionally, very hard for me but ask anyway.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci beaucoup, thank you. Any questions from the committee members?
MR. MACEWAN: Let me ask Madam Murtagh if she could explain to the committee, in view of the fact that she has spoken in both English and French, how the word "Cravatski" got to become Croatia in English.
MS. MURTAGH: Because Croatia comes from a Latin name, like Nova Scotia.
MR. MACEWAN: Does it not have to do with the French word "cravat"?
MS. MURTAGH: Nothing.
MR. MACEWAN: No?
MS. MURTAGH: Absolutely nothing.
MR. MACEWAN: That is not what the Croatian ambassador told me but anyway, he was probably wrong. (Laughter)
MS. MURTAGH: Well, maybe he was right.
MR. MACEWAN: Yes. The explanation is that when Napoleon's troops came into that part of the world, they found the people wearing something around their necks that were called "cravats" and they called them "Cravatski". That became Croat in English . . .
MS. MURTAGH: You may be right, I don't know.
MR. MACEWAN: . . . and in French, en française, aussi. The actual word, le nom actuellement dit, Cravatski, n'est pas?
MS. MURTAGH: It is actually, Hrvatska.
MR. MACEWAN: Hrvatska.
MS. MURTAGH: Yes, that is the country. I don't know what it has to do with the Calgary Declaration, by the way. (Laughter)
MR. CARRUTHERS: I was going to ask the same thing. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much. I think you have met your match, Paul. (Laughter) Thank you very much for coming forward. I do appreciate your presentation.
Vince Calderhead, private citizen.
[Mr. Robert Carruthers assumed the Chair.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Calderhead. Make yourself comfortable and advise us of your name. We have somewhat limited time and I would ask you to keep that in mind.
MR. VINCENT CALDERHEAD: Shall I go ahead here now?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go right ahead.
MR. CALDERHEAD: Thanks very much. My name is Vincent Calderhead. I work as a legal aid lawyer. I specialize in constitutional law. I guess I should add, I am a former Quebecer, albeit an anglophone.
I have prepared kind of a two-part submission for members of the committee and I hope they have that. The first is my own submission and attached to it are extracts from the 1991 Working Committee on the Constitution for your reference.
My submission is entitled, Three Serious Problems With What Is In "Calgary" and An Even Bigger Concern With What Isn't!
I think the issues that I would like to talk about and to address can all be linked together under the topic of equality. I think all of the things I will address relate to equality: equality of citizens; equality of provinces; equality of decentralization; and for me, what I see
as being missing in the Calgary Declaration, social and economic justice and the equality that relates to it.
Let me begin by just referring to the idea of equality. We know that points 1 and 2 in the Calgary Declaration referred to equality of citizens and equality of provinces. I think all of us, when we read that, we say, well, what does equality mean?
The word does not define itself. In fact, no word defines itself. We know that going back to the time of the ancient Greeks, they described their own society as one that was characterized by equality. Yet, we also know that Greece was a slave-owning society and we also know that women were not welcome in public life in ancient Greece. Yet, they said it was a society of equals.
Similarly, in the United States, in the first century of its formal existence, that country would say that one of the principles that underlay its birth was equality. Yet, it too was a slave-owning society.
I think what we can learn from that is that, well, people must mean different things by equality at different times, or even at the same time, two people can mean different things.
I guess the point I want to draw from that is, when we see what seems to be kind of innocuous references to equality in Numbers 1 and 2 in Calgary, I think, as legislators, you need to be extremely cautious, particularly because this is a constitutional context and words that may not seem to have a lot of significance take on extraordinary significance when they are constitutionalized.
What I think is helpful is to look at - when I looked at and studied the Calgary Declaration - is to look at the context where these concepts arrive from: equality of citizens; equality of provinces.
Well, as Nova Scotians, we know that in the last federal election, that concept and those phrases came from Reform Party campaign rhetoric: equality of citizens; equality of provinces, and has a kind of superficial appeal to it. How can anyone really disagree?
As I tried to point out at the beginning, equality can mean anything. It can have any number of meanings. As a constitutional equality rights lawyer, I can assure you that for the last 15 years, very skilled lawyers have attempted to have different meanings of equality accepted and some of them are very different, one from the other.
In the context of where these concepts have come from in Calgary, equality of citizens, equality of provinces, where does that come from? Well, we know that the Reform Party pushed it and now it has been accepted, particularly in the west of Canada by the
western Premiers. So often, when we are trying to find out what meanings we can attach to words, it is useful to look at the context in which they have been used.
Here is the context that the Reform Party has used. Equality for reform means no special status for anyone. One says, okay, what does that mean? Well, they, at some point, concretize that and I have attached a couple of their campaign pieces to my submissions, the second or third page from the end.
Well, what equality means for them when they say, equality for citizens, it means, abolish all affirmative action programs. Gulp. Is that what equality means?
Currently, Section 15 of our Charter, our Constitution enshrines affirmative action programs because they are seen as being fundamental to the values shared by Canadians to overcome historic disadvantage. They are fundamental. Yet, the context in which equality of citizens and equality of provinces has come to the fore and found itself in Calgary, is one in which the people who promoted it say, abolish affirmative action. That means everyone is treated the same.
I would submit that that is not the Nova Scotian view of equality. I would submit that in my experience, equality here means alleviating disadvantage, particularly that experience by vulnerable groups. It means governments must act in a way which overcomes historic disadvantage.
The classic example, of course, is the government building which is not accessible to people in wheelchairs. At one level, government could say, well, we are treating everyone the same, we are treating everyone equally. There may be no wheelchair ramp but everyone is getting the same treatment.
That version of equality, the Reform version of equality, for example, which is now in Calgary, perhaps, leaves the historic inequalities of people with disabilities further entrenched. They cannot get into the building. Yet, someone could say, well, we are treating everyone the same. There may well be no wheelchair ramp but everyone will be treated equally.
That clearly is an acceptable version of equality.
What about equality of the provinces? Well, treat them all the same. That is what Reform would have. I think what this committee needs to do is analyze the context again. Where is that concept coming from?
It doesn't take too long to think about it. The concept has come from resentment, particularly in the West, over a suggestion that Quebec might be accorded a special accommodation within Canada.
That kind of resentment has now bubbled to the fore to the point that Premiers, particularly in the West say, anything Quebec gets, we want too. Anything, we will get it too. That is equality of provinces. Really, what they are pointing to there is equality of decentralization, equality of the break-up of a strong, national government.
What would that mean for the Maritimes; what would it mean for Nova Scotia, equality of provinces? Well, if all provinces are to be treated the same, there goes ACOA, there goes TAGS. They would try to get rid of equalization as well but it is already in the Constitution. Anything targeted towards alleviating disadvantage, in the same way that the wheelchair ramp is targeted to alleviating disadvantage, may be seen as a kind of special treatment, when really it is just targeting a special need, would go by the boards for the Maritimes. Equality of provinces would mean anything that is focused at remedying historic disadvantage would have to go because provinces would not be treated the same. I think the Preston Manning view of equality would feel quite comfortable in that happening.
Just to draw this part of my submission to a conclusion, I would make three points and they are found on Page 5 of my submission, in numbered order.
The first point is that in Numbers 1 and 2 of the Calgary Declaration, the statements are hopelessly vague and fail to convey any clear meaning. It can mean anything, to say that we are all equal.
Of greater concern is that the context of discussions leading up to the Calgary Declaration is one in which the vision of equality which Calgary represents is one which is, as I have hoped to illustrate, one which is anathema to disadvantaged citizens and is anathema to have-not provinces such as Nova Scotia.
Thirdly, and therefore, I would call upon the committee, both in its report - as I understand the resolution to require - and the draft resolution accompanying it, to provide clarity as to this committee's understanding as to what is meant by equality in Numbers 1 and 2. To fail to do this would be to undermine the rightful interests of disadvantaged groups and disadvantaged provinces such as Nova Scotia.
The last two points I would like to talk to you about are Points 6 and 7 in the Calgary Declaration, what are called equality of decentralization. I have touched on this already. This is a theme which, as legislators, you may be quite familiar with.
As I said earlier, many Premiers, particularly in the West, say, anything Quebec gets, we want. The Premiers, particularly in the West, are now at a point where they say, okay, we don't mind Quebec getting more powers but we want the same thing too.
What does that mean? Well, it means something that Nova Scotians have heard several times before. It means a move towards decentralization; it means a move towards weakening national standards and social programs. That is what the agenda is. We don't need to pretend that it is something esoteric, in general. We know what the agenda is. It has primarily to do with the Canada Health Act.
Fortunately, this committee, when it is deliberating as to what to do and what kind of recommendations to come up with, can take very solid comfort from the extremely thorough committee report done in 1991, the Kierans Committee, the Nova Scotia Working Committee on the Constitution.
That committee, as I say, was an 11 member panel made up of no politicians per se but very representative groups, held 15 public meetings; 226 submissions were heard, particularly on this point.
When you read through the committee's report - and I have attached, particularly, the relevant aspects - time and time again, the committee's recommendations are very clear. I will read just a couple. Talking about distinct status for Quebec, they said, well, I'm sure we will be able to work something out, and then halfway down Page 6 I quoted, "But it will only prevail if the price of unity is not the fragmentation of the federation or the weakening of the national government.". That is found on Page 20 of the report.
The next page finds another quote. "Meeting Quebec's distinct needs must not be a pretext for granting to all provinces powers to which they have no reasonable claim.". If that sounds like Numbers 6 and 7 in the Calgary Declaration, you are right, that is what the agenda is there, and Nova Scotia spoke extremely clearly. As I read through that, that is the one theme that came time and time again. On the very issue of a strong national government, the committee reported that Nova Scotians want constitutional change to do nothing to weaken the federal government's ability to be a leading force in the economic, social and cultural development of the country, and on and on it goes.
[8:30 p.m.]
The committee - and I have attached extracts from it - in Appendix A you can see how the committee went to great lengths to say that national standards should not be jeopardized and that any possible constitutional discussions should give no space to anything that will weaken that. Yet, that is precisely what Numbers 6 and 7 are about. The average reader looking at those points wonders, why are they here? What do they have to do with? They have to do with the Klein-Harris-Clark agenda of getting more powers for the Premiers and to heck with national standards.
I think equality of decentralization, as it is tantalizingly described, is a game which Nova Scotians want no part of - and that has been proven - and we cannot emerge from it with success in any event.
My last point is, what is missing from the Calgary Declaration? As someone who works in the poverty law area and equality rights generally, I read through the Declaration looking for what we see there about the just society, the equitable society. It is not there; there is nothing there. We have these very queer Numbers 6 and 7 and when you read them, the last sentence of Number 7, for example, isn't even a sentence. I wonder what it is doing there? What is missing is we find nothing about the commitments which our elected governments must make for the provision of adequate, reasonable services to Canadians; there is nothing there. But it is just those services which Canadians point to as playing a defining role as to what it means to be a Canadian. When asked what a Canadian is, frequently, we say, well, we are not Americans because we treat each other properly. We often point to Medicare and other social safety nets. Is there anything about that commitment by our elected representatives in the Calgary Declaration? No.
Fortunately this, too, is something that the working committee in 1991 touched on. I have quoted at the bottom of Page 8, they wanted Section 36 of the Constitution, which most people - most lawyers, even - aren't aware of and aren't familiar with, strengthened and they want it made more explicit. Section 36 talks about a joint federal-provincial commitment to several things, the third of which is the provision of essential public services of reasonable quality for all Canadians. So, in 1982, when the Constitution was repatriated and we had our Charter, that kind of sentiment and those values were so fundamental that they were thought appropriate for inclusion in the Constitution. If they were appropriate then, how come we don't see them in the Calgary Declaration? They are not there.
On this, the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I think that this committee should go back to Section 36 - and I have attached to my submission Appendix B, the full text of it - and particularly, as I said with the UN declaration celebrating its anniversary, on Page 9, I have set out Article 25 which talks about everyone having the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, and it goes on. It is those kinds of values that, I would say, are fundamental to Nova Scotia and Nova Scotians; they are very deeply held. The proof of that is from the working committee. We don't need a focus group to tell us that; it is all there. So, when it comes to additions to what should be put in the Calgary Declaration, clearly I think the committee should be doing something in that regard. Thanks very much.
[Mrs. Eleanor Norrie resumed the Chair.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Carruthers.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you. I appreciate this presentation, particularly, because I found that this question on equality, that one person's view of equality could be so fundamentally different than another's. That has become clear through the various presenters who have come before us.
Just a couple of quick questions. I really don't look for justification, I am just trying to get around your head. I understand, I think, that you are certainly in sympathy with a strong central government maintaining national standards and at least social programs, and perhaps in more programs than that. I guess the short answer to that might be yes. Is that true?
MR. CALDERHEAD: Sure. I think I am with most Nova Scotians in saying that.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Yes, it seems to be a majority, but there are other views in that regard. That is what we are here to find out. I also understand in your point that the Calgary Declaration could be seen as a driver towards devolution of federal powers. What I wonder is, do you think that that is what the Declaration, in its wording, indicates, or that it could be interpreted that way? What I am getting at, is the Declaration itself, perhaps, inherently poor, or is it how one could interpret it and that you view us as the ones to put that spin on it?
MR. CALDERHEAD: In any interpretive exercise, the best way to find out what people mean by the words they have used, is to go back somewhat historically and look at the context in which those words have been used. You then say, aha!, now I know what they are talking about. So, when we talk about equality of provinces and equality of citizens, those are phrases from the last few years and we know where they are coming from and they have been specified. So, we now can look at the plain words in Numbers 1 and 2 and we are able to read them with more information. So, in Numbers 6 and 7, we know it is about devolution because every time the western Premiers meet, that is their main agenda. When they met in December, the quid pro quo as we understood it, for having that meeting with the federal government, was we will put the Calgary Declaration out and we will have something that will help the federal government's national unity cause and, in return, we want a say in interpreting the Canada Health Act. Gulp!
MR. CARRUTHERS: I understand, thank you.
MR. HOLM: Just really following up on that, and we have had similar expressions of concerns by some other presenters. This, of course, is put forward as a framework. It is not constitutional, so you don't need to get into all those little legalese in terms of definitions. But from this, who knows where things would evolve and maybe it could lead to possible constitutional suggestions down the road and then all those definitions that aren't here become very important as to what do people agree to in the Calgary Declaration.
I see some tie-ins, or there may be some tie-ins, between Numbers 1 and 2 and then Numbers 6 and 7, that if we are talking about equal rights for individuals and provinces and equal opportunities in the earlier ones and then we get down into the devolution of powers, et cetera, is there some way, some wording that you could suggest that could amend, let's say, Number 6? Again, if you throw in words like equity, well, what does equity mean? Then you could have other difficulties, possibly, with definitions. Is there some way, some suggestions as to how that could be reworded that would give, or requirements that in terms of any devolution of powers to provinces, that it would maintain the principles - and I think you are correct in terms of what Nova Scotians consider to mean by equality - and maintain those national standards coast to coast to coast, to protect the Medicares and the other things?
MR. CALDERHEAD: When you go back to the working committee, you see that they felt Nova Scotians were concerned to protect a strong national government, a federal government, for several reasons and in several areas, but it is particularly in the area of social programs - health, education and social services - that Nova Scotians felt particularly strongly about.
In answer to your question, if there was to be a restriction or a variation of Number 6 or an amendment to it, perhaps it would be by way of exempting certain areas from equality of decentralization with, perhaps, an introductory wording to Number 6 like, we do not support any further decentralization or devolution of powers, spending power, in the areas of health or social services, but with respect to other areas, if further powers are to be devolved, then it should be done equally. So, you could exempt some areas from decentralization while permitting them in others. Now, I don't know whether that meets your concern.
MR. HOLM: You could sometimes argue that what some people would call social programs, even items under health care for example, that that is part of the health care system; others would argue that it isn't. You can hide things in such ways, and I am wondering if there is some kind of way that we could be wording it so that the power would rest with the provinces so long as they maintain a set national standard?
MR. CALDERHEAD: Meech Lake tried that and it said we will create programs and let provinces administer them, so long as the provinces comply with national objectives, but most constitutional analysts said that term is so hopelessly broad that a province could do virtually nothing, or very minimal in a certain area, and claim to be within it. So, the bottom line is, you can't give away power and yet retain power to enforce standards. There are no easy answers to your question.
MR. HOLM: You can't have your cake and eat it too.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Calderhead, very briefly, are you advocating that some of the powers that provinces presently have should revert to the federal government? In other words, has devolution already gone too far?
MR. CALDERHEAD: It clearly has in the area of social services, when in 1996 the federal government abandoned the Canada Assistance Plan in the minimal, but important, standards there. So, that has gone too far already. The next area that the western Premiers have their eye on is the Canada Health Act. Essentially what that does is it allows the feds to attach strings to their transfer of money, and the Premiers don't like the strings and would prefer that they just get the money with no strings attached. So, definitely I feel that nothing should be done that promotes any further weakening of the federal role.
MR. RUSSELL: But you are not suggesting that existing powers that provinces hold revert to the federal government?
MR. CALDERHEAD: No, I am not. I think the federal government already has power in the social services; they do and they always have. I think with the spending power that the federal government has, properly wielded, important national standards can be maintained.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think perhaps we should move right along here. Okay, you have a question, Mr. Fage?
MR. FAGE: Your interpretation of Number 7, I think hits right to the heart of a couple of phrases there. You noted that Canada's federal system is only in two clauses there, but, "Canadians want . . .", listed in the second line and, "Canadians want . . .", listed in the fourth line. You are hitting at the heart of instead of definition, that that is a weaker, lesser betrayal of a set of words that would . . .
MR. CALDERHEAD: Those are code words.
MR. FAGE: Yes, they actually denote responsibility to one level of government.
MR. CALDERHEAD: They are code words which, when they say they want their governments to work cooperatively and flexibly, it is wording which, in my view, means they don't want the federal government having the final say as to what the five sacred principles of Medicare mean; they want the say.
MR. MACEWAN: Mr. Calderhead, I want to congratulate you on your brief; you certainly touched a number of points that others have referred to earlier and caused me some concern. What this committee has to do eventually is to draft a resolution which will identify whether Nova Scotians can support the Framework for Discussion - that is the seven point Calgary Declaration - as a vision of Canada with which they can feel at home. What would
your recommendation be to the committee in carrying out that mandate? What would you like to see done on that?
MR. CALDERHEAD: I have put it in in written form in my brief, so the answer may be there.
MR. MACEWAN: I know.
MR. CALDERHEAD: I take comfort from the fact that the resolution talks about the filing of a report, so sometimes concepts that we are trying to convey in a very kind of briefly worded resolution are hard to get across, so that is why the report may well be the place for you to write the important stuff and have simply a resolution which reflects it. With respect to Numbers 6 and 7 - I don't know whether you wanted an answer there - as I said in my submission, I think the committee would be well advised to simply abandon those and declare that Nova Scotians want no part of them. With respect to what is missing, the commitment to social justice is found in the last part and clearly when this committee is looking at what needs to be added, that needs to be added. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci. Thank you very much. Mr. Graham Murray from Unity Link.
Prior to Mr. Murray beginning his presentation, I want to recognize some members of the House of Assembly who are with us this evening. As you know, we are representatives of the House of Assembly chosen to hear the submissions and travel the province to listen to Nova Scotians. As has been stated, a resolution will be drafted and taken to the House of Assembly and debated by all members of the House. So I do appreciate them taking the time to attend this evening to hear first-hand some of the comments that we are hearing. We have with us Dr. Edwin Kinley, MLA for Halifax Citadel, would you like to rise? Thank you. Ms. Eileen O'Connell, MLA for Halifax Fairview; Dr. John Hamm, Leader of the Opposition, MLA for Pictou Centre; and Mr. Joseph Casey is also in the building, he is not in room at the moment, he is the MLA for Digby. We have with us, as well tonight, Mr. Gordon Earle, MP for Halifax West who will be presenting later.
I think I have recognized all in the room. So I thank each and every one of you who are attending tonight to listen first-hand to the presentations. Now, Mr. Murray, you can state your name and move forward.
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: My name is Graham Murray and I am the editor of Unity Link which is a website that reaches several hundred Canadians every day. We are seized with the issue of unity daily and have a particular interest in the Calgary Declaration. Some in our group were invited to the BCNI meeting in Ottawa where these principles were born last summer. Here was Tom D'Aquino, who showed up, trying to square the circle of recognition of the French fact with equality of the provinces. I remember thinking at the time, God love
him for trying. Our co-editor also, in Vancouver, served on the B.C. unity panel such as yourselves. She has many tales to tell of out there from what the people of B.C. had to say.
Like her, I am sure you have heard a lot of history and you have learned something about your country. That is a process that I like to call becoming Canadian. You are never quite there. You figure something out about Canada and meet someone from another region with a totally different perspective of their Canada. This is, after all, a curious country that works in practice but not in theory. I must confess, I have a serious case of constitutionalitis as a result.
Let's be blunt. We have many minorities in Canada but no matter how you slice it, one-third of the country speaks French. This French fact is a defining feature of our federation and the problem, the reason why we are here, is Quebec nationalism, in my opinion. French Canadians in Quebec are being sold a societal project by separatists. Nationalism has become a new religion there. It took shape after the old religion faded into the background in the 1950's. Adherents of this orthodoxy in Quebec will hear of nothing else. Much of the media there filters out good news about Canada. Federalists are marginalized in a host of ways. That is why our group tees separatists off so much.
Yesterday, 700 people visited our website which is 100 per cent bilingual. One-third of our visitors are international, that is just the nature of the medium. We tell it like it is, analyzing separatist and federalist rhetoric alike. Separatists don't like the fact that we are watching them which is why I have received death threats in the past in the voluminous mail we sort through.
So applying what we have learned to the Calgary Declaration, I will briefly comment skipping the actual text of the Declaration. Number 1, the equality of citizens. This is already embodied in the Charter and it is true insofar as we ignore the odious notwithstanding clause which says we are protected from the state unless the state really wishes us not to be.
Number 2 is equality of the provinces. This is federalism, it is true. It is also entrenched in our Constitution. Now, provinces have different relationships with the central government, of course. Equality of status does not mean equality of treatment, after all.
Numbers 3 and 4 are nice platitudes, in my opinion, with which I fully agree and I will just move on.
Skipping to the last one, there was a bit of discussion. Number 7, it sounds nice but if it is indeed a veiled reference to further decentralization, then I suggest you forget it. This is the most decentralized federation in the world. Any more decentralization and we should question why we have a Canada in the first place. Ask any Premier if he wants more power. He will say yes and he will quickly find six or seven other Premiers who agree. But we all know that there is only one Government of Canada for all Canadians and it is because of, and
not in spite of, successive Ottawa governments that we enjoy such an unparalleled standard of living. Ottawa is not the mean, monolithic dictator that is so often characterized by some of our Premiers, notably western. It is us, Canadians, going and serving our fellow citizens from one Pacific to the other, as my co-editor in Quebec says.
One example, that of health care, suffices. It has been discussed as well. It is a cornerstone of our society and while it is a provincial matter, constitutionally, no one outside of provincial politics much cares. We all agree, as Canadians, with the five principles of the Canada Health Act and that is Ottawa. Moreover, if they are not sending you enough money, demand more money. It does not follow that you should redesign the whole system. Excessive regionalism is the problem, in my opinion. It is narrow. It is old. It hurts the country. Yes, Joe Howe was right. We were tricked into this scheme. So what? We are lucky now to be Canadian and no one outside of the Flat Earth Society should suggest or recommend that Nova Scotia should chart its own course.
Now to the heart of the thing which I view as Numbers 5 and 6. This is recognition of Quebec. Like the Canada Clause of the Charlottetown Accord, this is buried somewhere down the list but, of course, it is the raison d'être of the whole deal. You are quick to say that this is not a constitutional round but you also know that more ammo this year may be needed when the situation heats up again, and my prediction is that it will. With the Reference case, an upcoming election in Quebec, and we read in the Quebec papers today that might be in the spring and a possible third referendum, many variables exist and federalists may need to respond with lightning speed. We simply cannot run around like the house is on fire like we did in 1995.
We therefore call upon the Nova Scotia Government to support the constitutionalization of Numbers 5 and 6 if that possibility should arise. It cannot do any harm since the unique character of Quebec is already recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada and I cite the authority for that in the footnote. Peter Hogg is one authority, we have a Supreme Court case and also the Right Honourable Brian Dickson, former Chief Justice. It is already the law of the land. If it means any more power for Quebec, then the Declaration states the other provinces get it too so equality is respected. So it can't hurt.
But, members of the committee, it can also do a lot of good. Our group constantly dialogues with Quebecers, separatists and federalists alike. Over and over again we hear the same thing. It is about respect. Many of them do not feel at home in Canada. The separatists pound home again and again that we don't really care in the rest of the country and this is a way we can show that we do. Their arguments may not ring as true if we step up to the constitutional plate with these principles. So if it should come to that, then you are the leaders. You are hired for this purpose and you should get on the unique character constitutional bandwagon. Mr. MacEwan stated in the press in December that there is no higher duty for Canadians, speaking of Canadian unity, and he is right. That is why politicians have to take the lead on this one. You know the stakes.
Finally, let me say, if we succeed in this task of keeping Canada united, then my generation and those who follow may just live out what Laurier called Canada's century. Everything the world will need in the next century, you name it, and we have it in abundance. The potential is vast but we have some serious work to do in selling that fact to those under the spell of Quebecois nationalism. I tell separatists often, in my discussions with them, that our vision of a united Canada is better, it is more noble, and it will be more successful. Thank you for your endeavours.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming forward. Very well done. Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Thank you very much and I was one of those who popped in on the web and visited your home page after a previous presentation. I think it was in Yarmouth or Bridgewater. I just want to really pick up on one point. You suggest that we should get on the bandwagon with Numbers 6 and 7. Number 6, of course, deals with the devolution of powers yet earlier you were talking about different things, for example, that excessive regionalization is narrow, et cetera, that it is old and you talked about health care and other kinds of issues that belong to Ottawa and really national standards. Just like your comment on where does the devolution then cease if we are going to be giving more powers to one and possibly then to provide Quebec with the opportunity to develop its uniqueness, if we are giving that to one, then that would, of course, be able to be given to all. Where is the divide if we are not going to become too much more regionalized and if we are going to maintain that centralist and nationalist focus for the good of all?
MR. MURRAY: I would just say that especially in the footnotes, it describes that we really already have this principle in our law and putting it in the Constitution would just enshrine what we already have. This would not be a carte blanche for a provincial government to start passing laws in all manners. It is a tool for Quebec to use to protect the French fact.
MR. HOLM: Number 5.
MR. MURRAY: Yes. Number 6 gives it to the other provinces, this very small specific power, if they need it. I can't envisage any situation where they would but if they do it is just one power, it is not a whole bunch of it.
MR. HOLM: But in Number 6, I am just trying to think of the wording again, it isn't only specific to those issues in Number 5, it just says, "If any future constitutional amendments confer powers on one province, these powers would be available to all provinces.". That isn't limited to language or cultural issues. That could be over health care, it could be over almost anything.
MR. MURRAY: I would just simply say that you really want to logically hook Numbers 5 and 6 together because if you are starting to give one province a power beyond just Number 5, which is the reason why we are here, in my opinion, then you really are getting into asymmetrical federalism and you are going to wreck the whole show. You are going to put an imbalance in there. So that is why I do hook Numbers 5 and 6 together. There is not going to be a situation, I don't think, where say Manitoba is going to get another power. There is no slippery slope here, I don't think.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MACEWAN: Mr. Murray, I like your brief. It is very much to the point and I am especially encouraged by the fact that a young person comes forward with such an optimistic view of the future of Canada. Now I wonder if you could help me on one point, refresh my memory. You say that Canada is the loosest or the least united, the most decentralized federation in the world. I wonder if you could explain what other federations you compare Canada to in making that conclusion? I am aware of, I think, five federated or confederated states in the last two centuries, one of them being Yugoslavia that we heard mention made of earlier this evening, and also the Swiss confederation and Canada. In times past the German confederation of 1815 to 1866 and the confederate States of America. Now can you tell me of other federations, though?
MR. RUSSELL: Australia.
MR. MACEWAN: Australia is a commonwealth. All right, we have a voice here that says Australia should be added to that list. Are there any others that you can think of?
MR. MURRAY: Mr. MacEwan, when I compare this federation which is one of the oldest federations in the world, to other federations, I mean them all and I don't mean historically. I mean them existing now. We are, on paper, more centralized than the United States of America, say, but in fact, it is the other way around. We are very decentralized in practice. The United States was very decentralized on paper and it has turned out to be very Washington centred in reality. The Swiss cantons are another example and they have powers but they would love to get their hands on the powers that the Canadian provinces have. I would just add in closing that you might want to visit our website for further elucidation of these views.
[9:00 p.m.]
MR. MACEWAN: A list of confederations for comparative purposes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Very good. I liked your answer, that's good. Thank you very much for coming forward, I appreciate your being here.
Cole Harbour High School, Grades 11 and 12. I believe teacher John Tilley will make an introduction and then there are three young people: Leslie Scott, Craig Cameron and Amanda Dean.
MR. JOHN TILLEY: We didn't bring all of Grades 11 and 12, Madam Chairman.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Representing Grades 11 and 12.
MR. TILLEY: Yes. We have Matt Mahoney, a Grade 11 student in political science and Leslie, Craig and Amanda are Grade 12 students. We spent a lot of time looking at various issues of Nova Scotia politics and of the politics of the country. I hope you will be interested to hear what the young people have to say. I don't know what they have to say, I can assure you that they are not my ideas, they are the ideas of these young people. Amanda goes first followed by Leslie Scott and Craig Cameron. I thank you in advance for having us here.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. As soon as you are comfortable, would each state your name just as you give your presentation.
MS. AMANDA DEAN: My name is Amanda Dean. Good evening ladies and gentlemen and members of the Select Committee on National Unity. We are honoured to be able to be here with you this evening. Myself, Amanda, and my friends Leslie and Craig feel very strongly about the Quebec separation issue. That is why we are here tonight.
To us, the separation of Quebec would mean a loss of the rich French culture that helped develop our country. In a more modern perspective, it would also damage the social and economic systems for all of Canada, especially that of the Atlantic Provinces. We are concerned with a future that will greet us when we are the age of our parents and, therefore, feel obligated to stay up to date with the issues involved with our country and express concerns when and where possible.
The Calgary Declaration made known some important points about Canada. There was just one problem. This meeting on unity missed the presence of the Quebec Premier. Not even an official statement was made by him. The relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada cannot survive unless everything gets brought out into the open. Everyone has their own thoughts on why Quebec wants to separate, but has Quebec really sat down and told the rest of Canada what is bothering them?
After all the efforts put forth to continue a united Canada, there still exists an amount of non-communication. Without cooperation from everyone, not much can be achieved. Hopefully, when the time comes that everyone is willing to listen and to speak openly about this very important issue, there won't be any one who will not cooperate.
After some deep thought about what else could possibly help deliver a solution to the separation issue, we unanimously arrived upon a possible plan of action. We would like to propose a national debate. The debate which we foresee would be comprised of two sets of 12 panellists. One side would include those who best represent the desires of Quebecers to separate, along with a minimum of two citizens outside Quebec who also agree with separation. The other set of panellists would be comprised of those who are in favour of a united Canada, chosen for diverse reasons from across the country. This way planned speeches and questions could be presented to the opposing side. There could possibly be another debate also for today's youth and future leaders to express their concerns. Leslie.
MS. LESLIE SCOTT: My name is Leslie Scott. Statement Number 6 of the Calgary Declaration states that if any future constitutional amendments confer powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces. As of September 14, 1997, Quebec has been recognized nationally as a distinct society. If any province can ask for rights that another province has, we feel that all provinces should be deemed distinct societies, because each province is unique and different. All provinces have different needs and desires and each province has its own characteristics, traditions and ethnic groups. All provinces have equality of status and no province should be singled out.
Although, we do agree that Quebec is a distinct society, again we say to you that all provinces are distinct in nature. There are other provinces in Canada that speak French and have their own cultures. For example, all along Nova Scotia's French Shore we have Acadians and bilingual citizens and Cape Breton has its Celtic culture. Canada is diverse from coast to coast in many ways but especially with all the ethnic groups like French Canadians, Japanese Canadians and the Native Canadians. We feel that no one group or province should be singled out.
We feel that involvement of all provinces and territories is necessary in order to keep our country united. Nine provinces and two territories is simply not enough. Quebec must participate in these discussions on national unity. How are the Premiers of the provinces going to come to an agreement with Quebec if Lucien Bouchard is not going to participate in the unity discussions?
No group in Canada should be left out of these discussions. All provinces and ethnic groups should be included in the unity discussions. This issue of Canadian unity is an important issue and should not be taken lightly.
We think that the threat from Quebec to separate from Canada is more a symbolic step rather than reality. This means that they want to show us that they have the power to separate. Quebec has enough people to form their own country and they also have enough reasons but do they really think that separating would be realistic? We don't think it would be realistic for many reasons. If Quebec separated, they would not have enough money to survive. Canada might take back all their belongings such as military bases and equipment.
Companies might take their businesses out of Quebec. Also, Native Canadians might take their land back from Quebec and then what would Quebec do? Craig.
MR. CRAIG CAMERON: My name is Craig Cameron. I couldn't imagine a Canada without Quebec. Canada's largest province is such an integral part of our heritage and culture that to have it gone would leave a large hole in Canada, one separating the Atlantic Provinces from the rest of the country.
People from British Columbia talk about western alienation. But if Atlantic Canada is surrounded by two countries and cut off from the rest of Canada, eastern alienation would be far more severe. Special trade and transportation deals would have to be made with Quebec just to give us a chance at survival. Sovereignty association may be a necessary evil that we would have to endure in order for us to remain in Canada and not be swallowed up culturally or even politically by the United States.
Of course, the best way to avoid this scenario is to have a united Canada. A country united through equality and through the acknowledgment of our differences. Differences that can serve to bring Canadians together, not tear us apart. Canada has the ability to amend its Constitution to include new rights of provinces and of Canada's Native people. The time to take the first steps towards this future is now.
A small symbolic gesture that shows Canada's governments are willing to work together for the good of our country is a positive step. The Calgary Declaration on unity provides that step. It is a small one, but one that is necessary to get the ball rolling towards further talks, talks that will hopefully involve Quebec at some point in the not so distant future.
Although separation is a distinct possibility in Quebec, there are many people in both French and English Canada who see a brighter future in a united Canada than a divided one. This attitude is coming through more and more as Quebec's people are beginning to have faith in Canada once again. This fact is most evident in the rejection of sovereignty in Quebec's latest referendum, narrow though that victory may have been. It shows that a majority of Quebecers are willing to give Canada a chance.
Unfortunately, Quebec's present government is not. As long as the Parti Québécois is in control of the province, unity discussions will involve only nine provinces and two territories. The people of Quebec should be able to speak at any future unity meetings or public hearings such as the one we are at tonight, on a national basis or inside Quebec. Only then will Quebec's true feelings towards unity be heard.
The Calgary Declaration doesn't solve all of Canada's unity problems nor does it attempt to. Its meaning is symbolic. It shows to the people of Quebec and Canada's First Nations that the rest of Canada is not turning a deaf ear to their struggles. That the people of Canada want a country where all provinces and territories are equal, though they are different, and all languages and cultures will flourish within a Canada that retains its own unique Canadian culture.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Very impressive. Thank you very much for being here with us this evening. We have had a small number of schools and young people represented at the hearings across the province and I think we have all been very impressed with the quality of those presentations.
MR. RUSSELL: I don't really have a question, Madam Chairman, just maybe a comment. I think that your message is very clear and I think it is straight to the point in that you are taking the Calgary Declaration as simply being the first step. I think that perhaps some presenters before us take it beyond that first step and expect something much more specific. So I appreciate your presentation and I think you have got the message. Thank you.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I want to add to the view of my friend from West Hants but I also want to ask, I take it you would understand it - there are really three presentations we have here and in some ways they differ. It would be interesting to see if you have a little debate yourselves. (Laughter) They seem to show in many senses the two sides of the coin. I compliment you and I hope you have a little debate yourselves, it would be interesting to see how it turns out.
MR. HOLM: I certainly echo the compliments of the previous two speakers; I guess, we have political unity on this one, all-Party support for that. I am very interested too in one of the early opening remarks and that is that one of the major problems is the lack of communications and for us to try to find out what Quebec, actually the people, not necessarily the government, but what the people of Quebec themselves actually want and what they think about Canada. So they can also know what the rest of the country is like.
I am just going to pick up a kind of question that Mrs. O'Connor usually asks about student exchanges, for example. One of the ways, of course, to get to better know and really understand is to visit and to spend more time in different areas, different provinces and different cultures. I am just wondering if you had any discussion within your group about the importance of more student exchanges and I don't mean just for a weekend but more student exchanges so that we could have more Nova Scotian and British Columbian students visiting Quebec and other parts of the country and more members from the Province of Quebec coming and staying outside Quebec families so that we actually get to live the life of each other and better understand where we are all coming from?
MS. DEAN: No, we haven't yet talked about that, as a group. But it would seem to be a good solution to understanding each other's cultures and where each other is coming from on this issue.
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: You have taken my comment but I would like to say that I am very impressed with what you have presented here tonight. If you can't do student exchanges there is also twinning. I think if you picked a high school in the province and communicated with them, it would be interesting to see how they feel and get on some really good debates when you are talking about that. We started the first one here in December with the Boy Scouts making a presentation. I think it is really appropriate that tonight we end the last night with you people making a presentation. So thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I am going to assist Mr. Murray and suggest that if you have access to the Internet that you visit the Unity Link. There may be an opportunity there, if you can't travel to Quebec, you can talk to young people like yourselves within Quebec. So thank you very much, we do really appreciate your being here this evening. Very well done.
We ask for Mr. John Tilley to come forward. Just state your name and as soon as you are comfortable, you can begin.
MR. JOHN TILLEY: My name is John Tilley. I live in a little community called Higginsville, just out behind the airport in Middle Musquodoboit. Madam Chairman, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, Thursday morning, January 21st, snow rushes through the yard, snow sculpts sumptuous waves of white, snow clings to ragged edges of graying shingles, snow winds under doors, banking buildings and burying fences, there is no path this morning, no easy way to get where you have to go, to the barn where cattle are waiting expectant now a distant and obscure 100 yards away. To walk there though, through this winter morning, is an act of defiance. Edging from one island of frozen congealed mud to another, searching for yesterday's footprints, now gone, lost in sheets of soft drifted snow, lost in the slick sheen of ice dangerously polished by the whip of wind and dusty winter morning grunge, to walk there though, through this winter morning, is an act of necessity. An act of caring, silage to fork, water bowls to thaw, cows to feed, a calf to care for. It is like this every other day for people everywhere. There is work to be done. The work of the day, the work of everyday. Complicated, though, this morning by the wicked winds of winter. I am reminded of the words of Gilles Vigneault, "Mon pays ce n'est pas un pays c'est l'hiver; Moi jardin ce n'est pas un jardin c'est la neige.".
The land, our homes, our work, our families, our friends, these are the things which matter to us, these are the things we dream of, the people we dream of, the places we dream of. These are the foundations upon which our constructs of law and government and politics are based. Margaret Atwood told us long ago, that being Canadian was about surviving - surviving the cruel tests of settlement, surviving the crucible of winter, surviving the numbing isolation of distance, surviving the indifference of urban landscapes, surviving the indifference
of callous corporations, surviving the paternalism of self-serving governments, and how little really things have changed in this most fundamental of ways. For all our progress, for all our measurable success, we still struggle to survive. To make our children's lives, for me to make my students' lives, better than our own, better than my own.
In short, the Canadian legacy is not about rewriting constitutional text or drawing new borders or boundaries, the Canadian legacy is about people, families, friends, parents, children, about relations, distant, some gone but never forgotten. Canada is about finding ways of making tomorrow somehow better than today. To be moving ahead perhaps in the slowest, most marginal of ways but slowly, always moving ahead. The day that we turn to each other and admit that our children will be worse off than we are, that they will hurt or suffer or be deprived in ways that we are not, on that day, Canada begins to die.
Does the Calgary Declaration see the nation as a collection of governments and institutions? Does the Calgary Declaration see the nation as a balancing of past interests and emerging debts? Does the Calgary Declaration see the nation as a debating society, a debate among philosopher queens and kings? I don't know and this worries me.
I am very worried that the Calgary Declaration does not look deeply enough in to the future, that there is not in its core a spirit, a heartbeat. I am afraid that people will greet the Calgary Declaration with indifference and cynicism. What a terrible waste that would be. Think of your own families, how each child, parent, grandparent, establishes and maintains an identity, so it should be with Canada. We can look at Quebec and say, what Quebec gains, Canada loses. Enough is enough. We have to treat those people, that province the same way we treat everyone else. That would be equality. What is good for one is good enough for the other.
I remember Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Clyde Wells arguing passionately that different powers between provinces would be the end of Canada. For me, the opposite seems so painfully and obviously true. Quebec simply is not a province like the others. Let's go to the table or write a document, let's create a vision in which Quebec, a province different from the others, is a vibrant part of a passionate Canada. Quebec's gain, then, is Canada's gain.
If we look to the words of the Calgary Declaration to find a stronger, different relationship between Canada and Quebec, I am afraid we will be disappointed. There will be no significant change in Canada until we stop hesitating about distinctiveness for Quebec. In fact, for me, the last 30 years of federal-provincial relations has been more about disunity than unity, more about who loses and who wins.
Small wonder we are not able to find solutions. We have worked with the wrong models. We are facing east, looking for sunsets, waiting for roses in winter. It is as if we have been fascinated by the heat and light of debate, forgetting all along that the tolerance we need to find, the strength we need for renewal, the strengths we need to build on are not found in
constitutional documents, on flickering computer screens or on prime time TV, they are found within, the spirit, the will to always progress, to accommodate, to compromise and to respect, to be Canadian. That comes first. Without a heart beat, the Calgary Declaration is nothing more than a virtual document lost in cyberspace. I ask the committee to remember this.
The day we turn our backs to the future, that is the day that Canada begins to die. The day we turn our backs on Quebec, Canada begins to die. Without tolerance, without understanding and without change, Canada begins to die. Find passion, find words, find people, find ways to breathe life into this Calgary Declaration. We are ready.
Remember the millions of Canadians who rallied in Montreal to show their passion for Quebec, their passion for Canada? They spoke for me, they spoke for millions of us, for millions of Canadians, not led by politics, not led by politicians, but inspired by the belief in this great nation. Seek your inspiration there. To do less is to turn your back on the young, to turn your back on tomorrow.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci, thank you very much. Very eloquent and, again, emotional and passionate comments. Any questions from the members of the committee? Mr. Holm?
MR. HOLM: I just have to say that I very much like your definition of Canadian.
MR. TILLEY: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Tilley, for coming forward. Gordon Earle, MP, Member of Parliament for Halifax West. As soon as you are comfortable, sir.
MR. GORDON EARLE: Merci beaucoup. Mon nom est Gordon Earle, et je suis deputé pour la circomscription fédérale en Halifax West. Je suis trés heureux d'être ici ce soir pour avoir l'occasion de vous parlez un peu sur un sujet trés important. Le sujet de l'unité nationale, et parce que, comme Mr. John Holm, mon vocabulaire en français est limité. Je vais vous parlez en anglais qui est ma langue maternelle. Mais j'ai beaucoup de respect pour la langue française et pour toutes les autres langues dans ce grand pays Canada.
Good evening. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this unity committee. The unity committees being held across the country are an opportunity not just for politicians, but Canadians to speak up and to be heard about our Constitution.
I have followed the Nova Scotia Unity Committee hearings and it struck me that it is indeed public gatherings like this one that strengthen Canadian democracy. They are a chance to participate in the strengthening of our Constitution, a chance to strengthen democracy, a chance to help government improve the lot for all of us.
In fact, one of the hallmarks of any democracy is the right of citizens to participate in decisions affecting their futures, whether that is working with a community group to bring about change in your neighbourhood, voting every four years for the men and women whom you want to represent you in Legislatures like this one or in the House of Commons, or speaking about our Constitution in order to hold this country together. The Constitution we are all living with now might not be perfect but it does give us those rights.
Now to quote Tony Clarke from his book, MAI and the Threat to Canadian Sovereignty, it is through a nation's Constitution that we get a glimpse of the extent to which the political participatory rights of citizens are both recognized and protected.
It is no coincidence that I just quoted from a book about the MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. I have come here tonight because I am very concerned about the danger of the federal government's continued pursuit of that international agreement, a pursuit that, if successful, will render the good work of committees like this across the country virtually useless. For one reason, the MAI imperils the power of the Canadian Constitution by severely limiting the lawmaking abilities of all levels of government; federal, provincial and municipal.
Now, I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Multilateral Agreement on Investment so I will just take a minute to tell you about it.
In short, the MAI will be a Bill of Rights for the world's investors, particularly, multinational corporations. Essentially, it will put those investors on an equal legal footing with governments. It would allow those investors to legally challenge government anywhere if those investors thought government policies adversely affected their interests, even if those government actions were in the best economic, social and environmental interest of its citizens.
The MAI will restrict the ability of governments to make policy. It opens the door for more legal cases like that recently brought against the Government of Canada by the American Ethol Corporation. That company is suing the federal government for $350 million because the Canadian Government banned the use of a toxic gasoline additive.
Now, Canada has become one of the best countries in the world for a reason. We, as citizens, have done that in part by using our power to democratically elect governments and Opposition Parties of our choice. These kinds of citizen powers are contained in our Constitution but the MAI will tie the hands of our governments, thereby tying our hands as Canadian citizens.
Don't kid yourself into thinking the MAI is only in play on the federal scene. The current draft of the MAI is scheduled to be signed into effect in May of this year. If it is signed, the MAI clearly states that its provisions apply to sub-national governments - that is, to provincial and municipal governments and that means you, this political committee.
So why did I come here tonight to a National Unity Committee to talk about a trade agreement? Because if the MAI becomes a reality, as is, it will leave us with hollowed-out governments empowered by an empty shell of a Constitution that will take a back seat to the rights of the large corporations.
As we face the challenges of globalization, we must never lose sight of our democratic values and institutions. We do not have to settle for trade and investment agreements that put the interests of powerful corporate elites ahead of our communities, our social programs, environment, labour rights and even our democracy.
We must not settle for agreements that will put into peril all the good work done by committees like this one all across our country. If we are truly interested in building a better Canada, all of us, committee members, citizens here tonight and Nova Scotians across the province must find out how the MAI will affect our lives.
In that regard, you should contact your federal Member of Parliament, regardless of his or her political affiliation, or you may call the Nova Scotia Public Interest Research Group at Dalhousie University at 494-6662.
Now, if this deal, the MAI, cannot be stopped, the Government of Canada must at least be pressured to have it altered so that it protects our democratic constitutional right to effective government.
Now, national unity is more than the MAI; it is more than French or English. National unity requires a strong national government. We see, today, the tendency for the federal government to devolve responsibilities to provinces and we see privatization and contracting out.
Pretty soon with this devolution, we are going to end up with a checkerboard where we have separate entities joined only at boundaries and no really strong national standards. So it is very important when we think of national unity that we remember we have to have a strong, national government.
[9:30 p.m.]
The other thing is we have heard people discussing the Calgary Declaration and we have looked at the seven principles that are outlined there and they touch upon many things but there is one underlying principle that is not really mentioned in that Declaration and it is
one that I think if we want to achieve national unity, we must come to grips with and we must talk about. It is a concept that people do not talk about much nowadays. You don't hear people saying the word love. You don't hear politicians talking about that word when they are drafting legislation. But I think it is very important that we realize the power of love when we are dealing with the question of national unity.
I will just tell you a little story, briefly, an incident that took place which drove home to me the importance of this concept of love. When I was the Ombudsman of the Province of Manitoba, the Ombudsman's Office there had jurisdiction over the mental health facilities, the correctional facilities, and we had the responsibility to investigate complaints whereby people felt they were being mistreated in those institutions. So one day I received a call at my office and it was from a woman who was residing in one of the psychiatric facilities and she wanted to talk to the Ombudsman. So she was put through to me and I was expecting her to tell me about how she felt the institution was mistreating her, abusing her rights and taking advantage of her situation but no, she started out and she started telling me about her life's history. She told me about her childhood and all the things that happened in her childhood, the abuse she had suffered which perhaps led to the mental disabilities that she was experiencing. She talked about how in later years her marriage had broken down, the way her husband treated her. She talked about the fact that at even at the point she was talking to me her husband and her children, who were ashamed of the fact that she was in a mental institution. They didn't come to visit her, they had abandoned her because of her situation.
In the midst of all this, she all of a sudden stopped and she said to me, Mr. Earle, do you love me? Well, the question kind of took me back a bit. I wasn't prepared for it and I had to stop and think because I didn't want to see headlines in the paper the next day, Ombudsman declares love for hospital patient. So I said, very carefully, I love everybody. Her voice came back very clear, very precise, very meaningful. Mr. Earle, I didn't ask you if you loved everybody, I asked you if you love me. I knew then exactly what that lady was asking and I answered yes, I love you.
Well, the silence that came through that telephone told me the story. She didn't say another word except thank you very much, Mr. Earle, and she hung up the phone. You could feel the peace that came over that woman for that one moment when she knew that someone out there cared enough about her to say the words, I love you, I care about you as a fellow human being, despite all that you have gone through. Despite your situation, I care about you. I guess what I am saying tonight, to this committee and to those within listening area of my voice, that we, as Canadians, if we want to achieve true national unity, we have to go beyond the words on the paper, we have to go beyond these clauses that try to express what we are talking about and we have to live a life that shows that we want to be united with our fellow human beings, with our fellow Canadians. That is the kind of concept we have to have when we deal with the youth of our country.
I was so pleased tonight to hear the young people give their presentation about this unity question. That is the concept we have to have when we are dealing with street people, the people who are homeless in our society. It is the concept we have to have when we are dealing with the sick and the afflicted, those who are suffering with health problems, those who are disabled, the disadvantaged. That is the concept we have to have when we are dealing with our minority groups. It is the concept we have to have when we are dealing with our Aboriginal population. I have said it before, and I will say it publicly again, that we will never ever achieve national unity in this country if we do not adequately relate to our fellow Aboriginal citizens, if we do not deal with the First Nations of our country, it is useless for us to talk about national unity.
So I think what we have to do, as politicians, as citizens of this country, we have to stop letting the economic factor drive our agenda such as it is driving the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Rather than letting the economic factor drive our agenda, we should be letting love and concern and compassion for our fellow human beings drive our agenda. When we are looking at our immigration policies, rather than looking at how much it is costing Canadians to welcome fellow citizens into our country, we should be looking with a heart of love as to what we can do to help fellow human beings.
We hear a lot of talk about partnership when we talk about national unity. A true partnership is based upon love, mutual respect and understanding for each other. So if we all ask ourselves this question when we are dealing with our fellow human beings, do we love them, I am sure that we wouldn't be sitting around this table tonight talking about national unity. Our country today is in serious difficulty because we do not put those principles in practice. Rather, we let the economic agenda drive us. We talk about budget deficits, we talk about debt reduction, all on the backs of the programs that are helping people show that we are concerned about them.
I will end this on a very positive note. I am glad to see that there are people today who do follow that principle of love, people who are concerned about the state of this country; the people who have come out here tonight, concerned about the unity of our country. Also, it became very clear to me during the various tragedies that we have experienced, the Saguenay Floods, the flood in Winnipeg and even the current ice storms, that love does abound in our country. When we get right down to it, national unity is there. We see people helping each other across borders, lending a helping hand to their fellow citizens who are in distress and that, to me, is what national unity is all about. That, to me, is what we have to strive for if we want to build a country that we can truly be proud of and we can truly count ourselves as Canadians. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci and thank you very much, Mr. Earle. Are there any comments?
MR. HOLM: I have just one very brief comment and that has to do with the idea of the MAI and tying it in to the whole issue of national standards. I have been trying to follow that very closely and I had attended the conference that was held in Toronto in the fall with representatives from not only across Canada but across the world on the corporate agenda. This was the prime topic of it. Am I correct in my understanding or from your interpretation, that if that is adopted that it would preclude our abilities as provinces, as municipal governments or as a federal government imposing, maintaining some environmental standards, labour standards, health and safety standards, those kinds of issues that could, in fact, be in jeopardy, that Canada could lose control over that and therefore the whole discussions about maintaining social programs and national standards could almost become irrelevant?
MR. EARLE: You are quite correct. That is exactly what that multilateral agreement would do.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I don't believe that is the Calgary Declaration issue right now. That is a completely different topic.
MR. EARLE: Not really, it does tie in because the Calgary Declaration talks about provinces and it talks about powers and it talks about the federal government having powers and what we are talking about is if those governments are to have that kind of power, they have to take control of these kinds of agreements and make sure they are not subjected to the agreement rather than the other way around. That is what is happening. The multinational companies are dictating what they feel would provide a climate of free trade on a global basis whereby if we, as Canadians, say, for example, wanted to promote an industry in Canada, and if we wanted to help a disadvantaged group by having maybe an Affirmative Action Program or a special program for women or whatever, to bring about pay equity and things like that, a company from outside could say, no, you can't do that because you are creating an unfavourable trade environment because that is not the way it is in our country. So rather than raising the standards to a higher level of standards, the standards could go down to the lowest level of standards. So it is very relative to national unity.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: No, the Calgary Declaration.
MR. EARLE: And the Calgary Declaration.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you very much for coming forward.
MR. MACEWAN: Would you accept another question, Mr. Earle? I listened with great interest to your remarks and I appreciate the power of love. However, you don't love the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. You spoke at great length about it. Would you have a copy of that here, sir, so that we could consider its contents?
MR. EARLE: You are quite right. I don't usually love things. I love people. So I guess when I spoke about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, I am talking about something right that would certainly not be in the best interests of Canadians, the way it is being negotiated now. I don't have a copy with me. There are copies available. You can get them through the Internet and I do have a copy myself but I don't have it with me tonight.
MR. MACEWAN: Just one copy you have. How big a thing is this?
MR. EARLE: It is a very thick document. There have actually been three drafts to date and negotiations are still going on around that particular document. But if you check the Internet, and I can't give you the address right now, but if you want to contact my office tomorrow, I could give it to you, but if you contact the Internet, you can download a copy of that particular agreement.
MR. MACEWAN: And your contention is that it would supersede any declaration or other . . .
MR. EARLE: Yes, if it moves ahead the way it is now, it would basically be an agreement that would tie governments into standards that are really being set by the large corporations. The economic factor would be driving the issue rather than the human factor, exactly.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We have a number of other presenters and the hour is growing late. So thank you very much for coming forward, sir.
MR. EARLE: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Murray Morse, private citizen. As soon as you are comfortable, would you state your name and move forward with your presentation, sir.
MR. MURRAY MORSE: Thank you Madam Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Murray Morse and I am a private citizen. I want to tell you of a little incident that happened to me as a young lad growing up in the Annapolis Valley. I was born in Montreal and my parents moved down here when I was about seven. I attended my first year in school in a rural school. Coming from Montreal, my costume on the first day of school included a beret. I don't know if you know what a beret is but they wore them in Montreal, a little round hat with a little thing sticking up in the middle of it, usually navy blue or black and largely affected by the French people of school age and some older. Groucho Marx wore one.
Anyway, I wore this to school just as a matter of fact and I didn't get any more than probably two or three steps inside the schoolyard when I was surrounded by a group of young fellas who removed that hat and threw it up on top of the school and it stayed there for quite
a while. I didn't bother to try and get it back because I got the message. I don't know if they realized the significance of it or not but it was different and I think that is probably one of the things that you have to overcome when you think about the Calgary Declaration and Quebec and the fact that Premier Bouchard was the only individual who didn't sign that Declaration. It is obvious why he didn't do it because there are a group of people in Quebec that we would never be able to convince of anything in regard to the cause of unity, no matter what we told them, no matter what we do, or no matter what is written into our law. They say that the making of laws and sausage is something that if you love it then you shouldn't watch them being made.
But there is no amount of cajoling and no amount of persuasion and no amount of rhetoric that is going to convince that part of the Quebec population who are die-hard separatists that they should stay part of Canada. I think we have people like that as well; we probably have people who say, well, we don't want them. In fact, I read in the paper today some remarks that were made to this committee, in its last gathering, where there was a tone that people didn't want them, or a person didn't want them. But I think our energies towards unity, as defined and described and put forth in the Calgary Declaration and also in our Charter and in our Constitution, should be directed to those Quebecers who are in a mood to perhaps listen to what we are saying in this regard. They have perhaps an acceptance of Canada in the mode that we have tried to describe to them and tried to make them comfortable within in the terms of our Constitution.
Here is an interesting quote - or at least I think it is - and I think it is relevant: In the new Parliament there will be no question of nationality, religion or locality. The resolutions are to do justice for all, justice for all races, for all religions, all nationalities and for all interests. I don't know if you people know who said that. Does anybody want to hazard a guess?
MR. MACEWAN: That is pretty idealistic.
MR. MORSE: Indeed. Well, you are probably quite right, he was an idealist. It is Sir Hector-Louis Langevin. He said it in 1865; that is pretty pertinent even for today.
Here is another one that has something, I think, to say in regard to the Declaration and the way that we want to develop our country: For here, in Canada, I want the marble to remain the marble, the granite to remain the granite, the oak to remain the oak, and out of all these elements, I would build a nation great among the nations of the world. Sir Hector-Louis Langevin said what he said in 1865 and this gentleman, Sir Wilfred Laurier, said this in 1903. It surprised the heck out of me, this stuff.
Here is something: The adoption of a Charter of Rights is a public act which enables us to realize the dream we have nurtured - freedom and equality before the law everywhere across Canada. That was said in 1980 by Claude Ryan who was then Leader of the Quebec Liberal Party.
Now, these people are our opponents, some of them, aren't they? That is what we have been led to believe. They are French. They weren't at that time unaware of the potential that Canada had. They had dreams of what Canada could be. Perhaps what we need is some of their dreams and some of their ideas and their ideals.
Here is another one: I believe constitutions are fundamentally about rights; rights are fundamentally about people; and people from childhood on must be encouraged to acquire a deep understanding of their own liberties, as well as an even deeper appreciation of the liberties of others. That was said in 1981 by Ed Broadbent.
Here is another one: We would like to live as we once lived, but history and its influences won't let us. John F. Kennedy said that in Dallas just before he was shot.
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada and although we believe in our Constitution, as it says in the first paragraph of it, that we believe in the supremacy of God, we also believe in the supremacy of this law, the rule of law, and it is reflected in the Calgary Declaration. That is why the nine Premiers, I believe, signed it. Why wouldn't they sign it? It is motherhood and apple pie, really. There is nothing in there that is controversial, I don't think there is. There isn't much of a challenge there because it has been said, most of it, before. It is ultimately fair and even-handed.
There is no notwithstanding clause mentioned - it didn't have to, I guess - in this particular Declaration. Speaking of which, Quebec has seized upon this evasion of the Charter several times, its notwithstanding clause. It is interesting to note that, for instance, Bill C-106, that language law which was enacted in 1988, is affected by a statement in the Constitution that says that Acts legislated under the clause of notwithstanding must be re-enacted every five years. Thus C-101 should have been re-enacted in 1993 and again this year. I suppose it has and will be; you could look it up.
A few days ago there was a new magazine that came out of Quebec, called Cité Libre. Now, there is a chance for us, as English-speaking Canadians, to maybe learn a little bit about the French and what they think and what they feel and what they love. I am not advocating that we all go out and buy subscriptions to this magazine, but this is the kind of thing that has to be done, I think, in order for us to get this understanding that we must have in order to be able to do the things we want to do with the Province of Quebec. We can't sit back and say, look, we are Canadians, we are English. You fellows are French and you live in that province and you have your culture and you want this and you want that and, hell, most of it we want to give it to you.
There is a lack of understanding; there is a lack of understanding on their part and there is a lack of understanding on our part. I think that the money that has been spent and the efforts that have been made to make us understand the French fact in Canada, if we can somehow do the same thing in the time that we have now to try to convince the people of Quebec that we do understand them and then at the same time they can have some understanding of us, that perhaps this Calgary Declaration will be a start.
In the second part, or one of the items we were supposed to sort of consider in this Declaration was the fact of the interface of the Aboriginal government and Aboriginal people with federal, provincial and municipal governments; self-determination is what I understand the Native people want. They seem to try to get it, in a lot of cases, by confrontation. They do something that they know is going to annoy the hell out of us. They will go up a wood road and they will cut down some forest that somebody else has laid claim to, but their treaties that were either verbal or in writing established some ownership. They will also go out across a salmon river and collect salmon which they say is their right, on the same kind of basis.
I think that the Aboriginal people are going to have to understand that confrontation is not the way. There has been some violence, and we are all against that, in some of these confrontations. I think what they have to do is to indicate to their people that we are going to have to learn that dwelling in the past is not the answer to our progress in the future. They must get their people to understand the responsibility that they have by avoiding confrontation and by preparing their people to prove themselves equal to the task of governing themselves. This is apparently what they are working towards.
As the previous presenter said, we have to start to understand each other. I think we have to spend more money trying to understand each other. I think we have to decide there is a method by which we can achieve this that is probably going to cost money. I only hope that the Calgary Declaration will be accepted for what I consider to be a start to disseminate information to Québécois that, look, we want you in our country, you are necessary as part of our country, you are necessary for the development of our future and for your future and our futures are intertwined. For you to go a separate way is to court a disaster that I feel that we would never recover from and I just hope that it doesn't happen. Maybe it is going to take some more acts of God to let them understand that we really want to help them, we really understand them. I thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Morse, for coming forward. Are there any questions or comments?
MR. MACEWAN: I would like to make one comment or question, if I could. I appreciated, very much, your quotes from Hector-Louis Langevin and Wilfred Laurier and Claude Ryan. I suggest that that train of thought is continued today in the Prime Minister of Canada. Jean Chretien was born a Quebecer, is a francophone-Canadian and yet is 100 per
cent for Canada. There is a large body of thought in Quebec which supports that point of view. We may not hold the majority of seats in the House of Commons there right now, but there certainly is a very substantial number of federalists in Quebec, which includes many francophones, which was demonstrated in the referendum of course.
MR. MORSE: I think we have to tap into these people.
MR. MACEWAN: Yes, and that number is growing. It is not shrinking; it is growing.
MR. MORSE: Let's hope so.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you very much, sir, for coming forward. I appreciate your taking the time to be with us.
Stuart Gamble.
MR. STUART GAMBLE: My name is Stuart Gamble. Let me start by saying that I did not take political science or law at university and I just consider myself an ordinary Canadian. It seems to be in style to talk of diversity, tolerance, compassion, et cetera, but rarely in Canadian politics do we ever seem to make a hard or tough decision. Example: if we had never had the first referendum, we might not be going before the Supreme Court to find out if a third one is even binding.
The thing to be now is politically correct; it seems, what can we do for Quebec to show them that they are distinct or unique or to give them pride? Politically, the Prime Minister of Canada is from Quebec; the Minister of Finance is from Quebec; the general in charge of the military is from Quebec; the Ambassador to the United States of America is from Quebec; our highest person in the UN organization is from Quebec. To me, that is political power. Canada has, by design, put the drug industry in Quebec, the aerospace industry in Quebec, it has supported all Quebec financial endeavours. That is financial power.
Canada, as a country, has looked the other way at Bill C-22, Bill C-101, the sign law. When you get off at Dorval Airport in Montreal, the sign at the top of the booth says Quebec Immigration. When you get off at the Calgary airport, I have never seen Alberta Immigration. When I get off at the Halifax airport, I have never seen Nova Scotia Immigration. Think of it, Quebec has political power now, financial power now, cultural power now, power over immigration and yet there is still, we will all admit, a major problem with Quebec. Now, do you really believe that the Calgary Declaration, that Quebec has a unique character, will really help solve the problem?
Bob Stanfield and Joe Clark had a two-nation policy, so why are we so surprised when Quebec says they are a nation? When I was a boy we were the Dominion of Canada with nine provinces, which later became 10. Now we are a federation. I often heard the late
Premier Bourassa, a federalist, talk of the State of Quebec. I never heard one federal politician correct him or tell him that it is a province, not a state; never.
Business is business. There is no Bank of Nova Scotia in Quebec. There is a Bank of Nova Scotia in Nova Scotia. There is a Banque Nouvelle-Écosse in Quebec. There is no Eatons in Quebec; there is an Eatons in the rest of Canada and an Eaton in Quebec. The major banks and Bell Canada moved thousands out of the Province of Quebec, yet the heads of these companies went on TV, looked the camera right in the eye and said, we never had a problem in Quebec. That was not leadership by the heads of industry.
In the past years, under both Liberal and PQ Governments in Quebec, well over 200,000 mainly English Canadians have moved out of the province. Maybe they were not unique or maybe they just did not fit into the scheme of things. Did the Canadian Government ever have an inquiry or a Royal Commission to find out why over 200,000 people would move out of one part of the best country in the world? Think of it. The nine Premiers and the two territorial government Leaders have not touched that at all in the Calgary Declaration. The Quebec situation is a terrible problem for all Canadians, and that is all Canadians.
I think it is very naive to think that some bilingual signs or cultural exchanges will really solve the problem, or a Calgary Declaration that would take judges and politicians years to decide what it means. I think what the average Canadian feels is that the Calgary Declaration is sort of a Quebec solution without really meaning a thing, and also Quebecers will always see it just as that, trying at a solution that doesn't really mean anything; it doesn't say anything and it doesn't mean anything. So, we can continue to never make the hard decisions; we can just go along the way we have been or become like the Czechs and the Slovaks, or we could follow, maybe, Abraham Lincoln's words and be one country indivisible, called Canada. The choice is ours. Thank you very much for hearing me.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation.
MR. GAMBLE: I hope there aren't any questions.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I just have one, and it is probably fairly obvious. When you say that we can follow Abraham Lincoln's words that one country is indivisible, called Canada . . .
MR. GAMBLE: He said America.
MR. CARRUTHERS: . . . I take it when you say the choice is ours, if you had the choice to make, that is the route you would follow?
MR. GAMBLE: I would negotiate. I wouldn't sit down and pretend that the big problem doesn't exist. I wouldn't put down the Calgary Declaration where it is only lawyers and judges and people like that, that would never even understand it. They will sit for years and years, and in another 20 years say, we meant unique, we meant just. Men were at this committee with far better education than mine and they can't figure it out; politicians can't figure it out. So, why not keep it simple? Negotiate. But there are only two or three ways to do it. Negotiate and give Quebec a good deal. When I say Quebec, I don't mean francophone Quebecers, I mean all Quebecers. But you can't negotiate by saying, my God, we love you, and if it doesn't work out, we are going to be finished without you, because it would be disaster for Canada, disaster for Quebec. But there would be a Canada without Quebec and there would be a Quebec without Canada.
MR. CARRUTHERS: But what I am asking you is, in the end of your report you say that the words should be, there is one country and it is indivisible. Do you agree with that?
MR. GAMBLE: If all else failed, Abraham Lincoln wasn't a redneck. There is a United States of America and I don't advocate violence or things, but there is a United States of America and without him, there wouldn't be.
MR. MACEWAN: I would like to just ask one question if I could. Earlier tonight I made reference to Croatia. You have made reference to the Czechs and the Slovaks. I have many friends who are both Czechs and Slovaks and the general feeling is that both are worse off for the country having broken up, that they are not any better off. Slovakia, in particular, has gone down a lot. The Czech Republic has done quite well, but they would be better off if they were still united. They regret what happened there. Would you not take that into account, the developments since the rupture?
MR. GAMBLE: It is good that you brought that up because that is exactly what I meant. You can go the way of Czechoslovakia and we both would be worse off. I agree with you 100 per cent. It wasn't meaning that it is a good example to take, it just means it is what can happen. You can go, and the Czechs and the Slovaks did it, and they are both worse off. The Czechs are probably a little better off than the Slovaks. If we split up, I would think Canada might be a little better off than Quebec but it is just like a divorce, you both lose.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Gamble, for coming forward.
Andrew Younger. As soon as you are comfortable, just state your name.
MR. ANDREW YOUNGER: My name is Andrew Younger and I am from Halifax. Members of the committee, I would first like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on the last evening, I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible as I realize there are many others who have spoken and the evening has probably been a long one for you and a long month.
I have been a lifelong resident of the province. I would like to say that I represent Canada but I guess that would seem presumptuous. But it seems to me that Canada is the forgotten party in this whole constitutional round. My background coming to you tonight is as a private citizen, as the agenda indicates, but I represent a varied history, most recently studying nationalism abroad and domestically.
Over the past number of years I have had the opportunity to read and study many of the documents which have played a role in getting us where we are now, these have included the British North America Act, the Meech Lake Accord, the Charlottetown Accord and the Report of the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada, and there are a variety of other documents that I could list off, and of course most recently the Calgary Declaration. Each of these documents has its own merits and problems, and the same is true for the Calgary Declaration. I would like to share with you a brief collection of thoughts I sort of put together.
To put it bluntly, the Calgary Declaration is a cop-out, in my opinion, that avoids the fundament issues facing Canadian unity. By this point, one would have expected that the Premiers would realize that it is imperative that no one region in Canada be recognized as any more important than another. Yet in Number 5 in the Calgary Declaration it states - and I will just summarize it here because I am sure that everybody has read it - that in the ". . . 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.". And it goes on to call Quebec unique. Not that I see the difference between that and distinct but whatever the case may.
Now, I am not arguing that Quebec does not have a fundamental role in the development of Canada as a nation, because certainly it does. The French people are clearly a founding nation but so too are the First Nation's people, the Metis and a number of very important groups. It is simply not enough to consider these people as only a second thought as the Framework and Discussion on Relationships from November 1997 seems to indicate.
Arguably what makes this country one of the best - if not the best - countries in the world is its uniqueness and its multicultural nature. By recognizing only one of our great founding nations as unique, we inevitably leave the others out and we deny the importance of our heritage.
I have studied this matter in some depth, at least since Meech Lake first appeared, and it seems to me that we are forgetting one of the features that uniquely links Canadians. Now we have to remember here that nationalism - and it is nationalism I believe that we are searching for - is the principle that a people is linked by a sense of community or commonality. This commonality could be heritage, language, or any number of other factors, usually land not being one of them. By recognizing one group as unique or distinct, we entirely remove the concept of a nation. My understanding was that Canada was a nation. Are
the Premiers telling me that they do not believe that we are a nation? Are we simply a commonwealth of states, which is what the former Soviet Union has become?
Indeed, if we are going to accept the influence of French contribution to Canada - which don't get me wrong I do believe we should do - perhaps we should be looking at the Constitution of France and wonder why they are not letting places such as Corsica and a variety of other states separate, which they are trying to do at the moment. The reason is because in their constitution it says that France is one country indivisible.
MR. MACEWAN: A very centralized state.
MR. YOUNGER: A very centralized state. Now, that is also found in a number of other countries as well that aren't as centralized. Now, there are some arguments whether we want to become a more or less centralized state and that is a job for another committee or another Royal Commission, I am sure.
We have to understand that from the very beginning English and French speaking peoples in this country have been uncertain how to share this country. This isn't a new problem and we are not going to come out with an answer in two weeks for this problem. I believe we need to continue the kind of dialogue we have here tonight and which is going on across the country. Politicians, think tanks, everybody needs to listen to what the people want and I am kind of happy to see this thing going on, which we didn't see in the past. We are a country and I believe we have to recognize that. I am not convinced that the Calgary Declaration recognizes Canada as a country.
There are things we must do. We must recognize the supremacy of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This makes us Canadians. We must recognize that all people are equal and as a special and fundamentally different case, we must recognize the need for self-government of the Native peoples in areas where negotiations deem appropriate. I ask you where these declarations are in the Calgary Declaration and even in the documents that have followed, including the document that came later on Native government? Are we a country or are we simply a group of nations that are allied together for the sake of goodwill and trade? I believe we are a country, and a great country at that.
Canada has been a model to the whole world for over a century now. It was the first to advocate responsible government, where the Cabinet was responsible to the people and not a monarch; a system later adopted by Britain, which much of the rest of our parliamentary system hails from. It is one of the few countries that has advocated a cultural diversity in its policy and its thinking. Canada has not accepted the melting pot ideal of the United States and elsewhere. This is a policy of multiculturalism which applies not only to French and English but to a full range of cultures and any new constitutional agreement simply must include this.
Canadians have never been known to have a strong sense of nationalism. A strong sense of national pride, perhaps, but not nationalism and the new constitutional strides must make successful attempts at fostering this in the people of all provinces, however unique or distinct. While we may recognize Quebec as unique or distinct, whichever it is, the words and meanings are still the same, we must not fail to recognize that every region in this country and each people is equally unique and to single out one group is not only dangerous it is an insult to all those Canadians who are not part of this unique group.
In saying this, I do not in any way limit or deny the fact that Quebecers and their culture are unique, indeed, they are.However, this uniqueness is shared by other regions of Canada. One cannot intelligently say that the north does not have a unique culture, nor that Newfoundland, nor even our home province of Nova Scotia do not have their unique cultures and traditions. I do not sincerely believe that we either can nor should accept any document which does not recognize the uniqueness of all Canadians.
Without getting bogged down in the details of this idea, simply put, any accepted declaration should recognize all areas of Canada as unique, either by region, by province, or more in a difficult manner, cultural origin. Needless to say though, any grouping of people by any method is dangerous and there is a danger of this happening by recognizing Quebec or any other party of the country as unique. Let us not forget that uniqueness, distinctness, or whatever, is akin to segregation and segregation leads to prejudice and racism either by or against the one who is declared unique.
It is often surmised that Canada is a series of nations within a nation. By declaring one region, whatever region, as unique or distinct, we are setting the stage for the eventual Balkanization of Canada. In the study of historical development of nationalism, the continuing developments in much of central and eastern Europe as well as the so-called nationalistic ideas of the United States and the Middle East, show that many of the same concepts that have created revolution and new political systems in Europe, which are arguably similar to the underlying philosophies behind the current political and sociological situations here at home.
What we have witnessed in Europe, as in other parts of the world over the years, is an attempt to prevent self-destruction of countries resulting simply in that. Canada has, however, a unique condition. Many of the countries which we now witness as subject to self-destruction were once unique and separate. This is not true of Canada. Canada, while arguably once labelled as Upper and Lower Canada has always been a whole to some extent only losing some territory to what eventually would become the United States. Under the British North America and the Act that created it, Upper and Lower Canada instituted the problems we now seem to have.
This means, of course, that we should not be rushing to fix the problems of old. While we cannot simply let the matter die, it seems to me that we as a nation and as a people, one people, are trying to conquer unification far too quickly. Please do not let us rush into decisions which we will later regret.
My friends and fellow Nova Scotians, don't think that I am anti-Quebec or in any way against the continued progress in our Constitution. I certainly am not. I love Canada, and indeed, I believe we must fight to save this country as one nation. I do not believe we are patriotic enough, and I do not believe that our history has been blessed with the longevity of countries such as England and France, who have spent hundreds of years debating theories presented by philosophers such as Locke, Hegel, Voltaire and Rousseau, on this very topic. Yet we are blessed as a country. We are one people and our Constitution must reflect that we are one country indivisible. We need a strong, powerful sense of nationalism, not in being not quite American, but in being uniquely Canadian. While the Calgary Declaration is certainly a start, and perhaps arguably a good start at that, it is only one page from a collection of works which we will need to define us as a people. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. Younger for being with us this evening. You will take some questions?
MR. YOUNGER: Sure.
MR. CARRUTHERS: A couple of quick ones, I hope, anyway. First of all, I want to compliment you. I think you have ably summarized the strong sentiment that has come before us before. I find something that I am just not clear on. I thought I understood your point that uniqueness basically is contrary to equality, perhaps and that the Calgary Declaration states these things and yet you say, in the end, that the Calgary Declaration is a pretty good start. Do you mean that there are parts in it that are good or do you mean that it is all a good start?
MR. YOUNGER: I think what we are looking at is something - I am referring to both the process and the document - that is not carved in stone yet, it is something that this whole process here is to allow us to change it and make modification, which is different than anything that has gone before. I think that is what . . .
MR. CARRUTHERS: Speaking about the process is a good start.
MR. YOUNGER: Exactly. I am speaking about the process.
MR. RUSSELL: I am interested in your comments on the unique part of the Declaration. I take it from what you have said that we should not be recognizing Quebec as a unique province of Canada unless at the same time we say every other province is also unique but then again we don't want to say that either, we want to say that Canadians are unique. I am a little mystified as to where you are coming from.
MR. YOUNGER: When the concept of distinct society came out first, initially, I have to admit, I was in favour of it and I said, oh, that looks very good, but the further I studied it, the more I realized there is a certain danger in recognizing an area as unique. First of all, I believe, if we are going to recognize as you said, one area as unique - Quebec - we have to recognize every other province, or at the very least, every other region of Canada, as individually unique in certain ways. However, if we do that, I am a little bit scared that we then enter a whole other kettle of fish where we end up with, well, if you're unique then you're a separate nation. There is something different about you than me and all of a sudden we are not a country anymore.
Also, it seems, you remember we have had segregation in all other parts of the world. We have had segregation of blacks in the United States and in South Africa we have had different racial groups. We also have, in other areas, had ethnic groups such as we have seen in the former Yugoslovia and what that eventually led to. Well, they thought it was a good idea when they unified Yugoslavia but in the end it eventually led to civil war and their Balkanization. Now, I am not saying that we are going to have civil war in two year's time if we go ahead by recognizing Quebec as distinct or unique but I think that you are talking about separating the country eventually because if you recognize yourself as distinct or unique, you are going to become more so.
MR. HOLM: Just briefly, Number 5 of course refers to the fact that Quebec is predominantly French speaking, that it has a different culture and the different civil law. Do you agree that those things are unique in Quebec or different in Quebec from other parts?
MR. YOUNGER: Yes, but I believe there is a better way to go about it though. There is no question that we have to protect the French culture but not only in Quebec; in New Brunswick, which is our only officially bilingual province and we have to protect civil law in Quebec because that is an important part of Quebec society. But should we say that the North isn't unique because the vast majority of people that live there are Metis or First Nations people. I think that same distinction could apply to many other regions of Canada if not provinces.
MR. HOLM: Just trying to clearly understand what you are saying then, you have no difficulty with recognizing that those elements in Quebec are unique from Canada as a whole but you would like it to go a little bit farther. We have heard other presentations, for example even here tonight, talking about that they think it should go a little bit farther in recognizing that other provinces should have a responsibility also in trying to protect the minority cultures, say the French culture here in Nova Scotia, the Acadian culture.
MR. YOUNGER: I think the best way, personally, to go about it is to individually protect the items, as you mentioned, that we believe are unique, whether it is civil law, the French culture here, or the Ukrainian population out West. I think that is a much safer way
to go than recognizing an entire province as unique when, frankly, I don't think it is the province that is unique, I think it is its institutions.
MR. HOLM: It is those elements.
MR. YOUNGER: Its elements that are unique.
MR. HOLM: The last, very briefly, you and several others have talked about Canada as a country indivisible. That is easy to say but if all don't necessarily accept that, it is not necessarily always so easy to enforce.
MR. YOUNGER: I agree with that. I think it is not so much a rule of law, because of course if you are going to divide the country, well, we can get into the whole Supreme Court argument of whether the law matters anymore. I think it is an important statement to be in there from a philosophical point of view and from a point of view of nationalism and national pride to say that we are a country. I believe that is how any new Constitution should start and say, we are a country, we are indivisible, in other words, we are united in any struggle, whether it is an ice storm or whether it is a war or whatever it is.
MR. HOLM: And that our differences then we will resolve by . . .
MR. YOUNGER: Yes, we will work to resolve any differences that we might have. I think we can do that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming forward and being with us this evening and for your presentation.
MR. YOUNGER: Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Louis Comeau and Mr. George Cooper, President and Board Member of the Council for Canadian Unity.
M. LOUIS COMEAU: Bonsoir, madame la présidente et membres du comité. The Nova Scotia Round Table of the Council for Canadian Unity is certainly grateful for this opportunity to present its views to the select committee. This is a joint presentation by George and me.
The Council for Canadian Unity is a national non-profit organization that was founded in 1964 to promote Canadian unity through communication, research, exchanges and similar activities. We are a non-partisan forum, bringing together members of all federalist Parties and other thoughtful Canadians to work together for Canadian unity in many different ways. It was, for example, the Council for Canadian Unity, that first launched and organized Canada Week in connection with Canada Day celebrations. The national headquarters is in Montreal
and we have offices elsewhere. The list of the Nova Scotia directors is appended here and we have submitted a list, as well, of the Round Table members, people who have been talking about these issues in our round-table talks.
The council has provincial round tables from coast to coast. Like the national Council for Canadian Unity, these bring together members of all federalist Parties and other informed citizens to work for national unity according to each province's particular needs. This is co-chaired in Nova Scotia by myself and Lesley Southwick-Trask, who was unable to be here this evening.
Much of the council's activity through the years has focused on Canadian youth, in particular through our Encounters with Canada program - this is the Terry Fox experience - which each year brings 3,000 young high school students to Ottawa to spend the week learning about national institutions. We have a new Experience Canada program, also based in Ottawa, which provides work opportunities across Canada for young graduates. Another facet of the council is the Montreal-based Centre for Research and Information on Canada, which conducts research. This CRIC also operates a website and publishes weekly newsletters and bi-monthly magazines.
We have done considerable research on Canadian views about unity and about the Calgary Declaration. We shall discuss some of these in this submission.
Our province was a founding member of Confederation but Nova Scotians did not make that choice easily. Our allegiance to Canada came only after careful consideration and negotiation, and it is all the stronger for that. We know that as a part of Canada, we are part of one of the world's richest and strongest countries. We also know that in Canada, we have one of the best countries in the world: one of the most generous, one of the most tolerant and open societies on Earth.
Nova Scotians understand that there are times when Confederation has to adapt, to recognize the concerns of one or more of its citizens. We understand that this kind of constructive initiative, if it is carefully designed, strengthens the country. What may weaken Canada fatally is not the acknowledgement that Canadians have diverse characteristics and needs, it is the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of these needs.
In our generation, the strongest pressures for changes come from Quebec and, more recently, from western provinces. In both cases, the arguments often focus on the distribution of political or administrative power, but the underlying cause of tension is more profound. Many Westerners and Quebecers feel that they are not treated as equals in their own country.
Of course, this belief was given tremendous - you know, the Meech Lake Accord failed. There is a quote that I will not bother reading to you now about the effect of that but in a poll done by our research group last July in Quebec, 72 per cent of francophone
respondents said it was important for Quebec to be recognized as a distinct society - the term that was then still current.
Other polls that our group has done show that the phrase "distinct society" remains unacceptable to a large majority of Canadians outside Quebec. It appears, however, that a significant part of that opposition is based on misunderstanding. For example, an Environics poll found in 1996 that 40 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec actually thought a distinct society clause would give the Government of Quebec power over them.
The poll also shows, however, that when different phrasing is used and when the proposed form of recognition spells out what is recognized, what is involved, a large majority of Canadians support such recognition.
I will now ask George to run through the Calgary Declaration research and I will come back at a later stage.
MR. GEORGE COOPER: What I am referring to here, ladies and gentlemen, is the material here at Page 3 under the heading, The Calgary Declaration, CRIC Research. Then I am going to move to the Appendix at the end of the report, Appendix A, and go through some detail.
The CRIC commissioned a major series of opinion polls after the Calgary Declaration and some of the information that emerges from this poll, all of the information that emerges is really very interesting, indeed, and I think of very great value and importance to the work of your committee.
There were 4,300 Canadians who were questioned in the poll and their responses were consistent in every province, in every age group and in every other category. I am going to go through the technical details of those in a moment but first let me say that from coast to coast, the poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Canadians, including Nova Scotians, support the core principles of the Calgary Declaration and believe that their Legislatures should adopt resolutions based on the Declaration.
If we take Nova Scotia as a single province, 64 per cent of the respondents favoured adoption of a resolution. It is not as if there 36 against, there were only 18 per cent against and the balance were undecided.
Support for the principles of the Calgary Declaration is also strong in Quebec, even though the Quebec Government is not participating, as you know, in the Calgary process.
However, it is clear on a national basis that support for the declaration is directly related to the fact that here you have a package deal, it addresses both the question of provincial equality which is extremely important, as you know, outside Quebec and it also
addresses the question of Quebec's unique nature or character and the responsibilities of the Government of Quebec to preserve that unique nature within the Province of Quebec. It turns out that without both of those planks, the whole edifice will fall down.
[10:30 p.m.]
Let's talk for a moment about the situation in Quebec. The fact of the matter is that 70 per cent of Quebec respondents to the polls said that it would be important for Quebec if the other provincial Legislatures adopted resolutions based on the Calgary charter. Then at the top of Page 4 of the brief, 27 per cent of the yes voters, that is, 27 per cent of the people who would vote in favour of separation in Quebec said that they would change their mind and vote no - that is, vote in favour of Canada - if a resolution of this kind were adopted by the Legislatures. Now, you cannot use polls as predictors of future action, I agree with that, but it is, I think, a really interesting statistic to bear in mind as we go through this process.
There is another point that I think is worth considering. The Calgary Declaration is not written in constitutional language. It is a declaration of principles. Obviously, in order to become a constitutional amendment, it would have to be prepared in the form of a constitutional draft.
However, in the CRIC poll, 78 per cent of Atlantic Canadians and 78 per cent of Nova Scotians within that group said that they would support changing the Constitution to recognize the unique character of Quebec society so long as any powers received by Quebec would also be available to the other provinces.
Then if I can turn to Appendix A to get into some of the details of the poll which I believe you will find of interest, if you look at the bottom of the first page of Appendix A, you will see that the Atlantic sample of this 4,300 cross-country was 1,009 people and the Nova Scotia sample within that Atlantic group was 301.
There is a margin of error of 3.1 per cent for the total sample and, of course, the margin of error is higher within Nova Scotia because the sample is much smaller in absolute terms. The fact is that, given the very large majority in favour of the Calgary Declaration and its individual parts, the margin of error turns out not to be of significance.
Turning then to the particular poll results in Nova Scotia at Pages 2 through 5 of the Annex, you can say as a general statement that Nova Scotians care a great deal about national unity because an overwhelming majority of them - that is, 90 per cent - told the pollsters that it is important to keep Quebec in Canada. In general, Nova Scotians strongly supported both the Premier's decision to hold the meeting and, also, the specific proposals that resulted from the meeting.
If you just ask for a kind of "top of mind" reaction from people, a lot of them did not really know a great deal about the details of the Calgary Declaration but if you probe the individual points that are contained within the Calgary Declaration, what you find is that there is large support in the Province of Nova Scotia and that that support is consistent among communities of all different sizes, among both sexes, in all age groups and in all income groups. A large majority of Nova Scotians told the pollsters that they thought that our House of Assembly should adopt a resolution based on the Calgary Declaration.
So what are the specific results?
No. 1, at the middle of the second page of the Annex, "Was it a good idea for the premiers to hold their Calgary meeting?". 85 per cent of Nova Scotians say, yes, it was.
No. 2, "As far as you can see, do you support what the premiers have proposed? Answer: Yes.".
If you then look at the table at the bottom of the page, 57 per cent support what has been proposed, only 15 per cent oppose it, whereas twice that number or 29 per cent do not know or considered the question not to be applicable. As you can see, it is pretty consistent in terms of gender or region within the province and, indeed, across the Atlantic Provinces.
"3. Point by point, do you support the key elements of the Declaration? Answer: Yes. The first element:
a) "All the provinces are diverse in terms of the characteristics, but they all have equal status." Do you agree with that proposition? 85 per cent say yes. Only 15 per cent say no.
b) "The unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its civil law tradition, is fundamental to Canada." Do you agree with that proposition or not? 78 per cent of the people of Nova Scotia agree with that proposition; only 20 per cent disagree.
c) "The government of Quebec has a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society." In Nova Scotia, 76 per cent agree with that proposition; 22 per cent disagree.
d) "If any future constitutional amendment gives any powers to one province, those powers must be available to all provinces." Do you agree or disagree? 95 per cent of Nova Scotians agree with that proposition. That is the other major wing of the Calgary Declaration.
As you can see from the table at the top of the next page, all of those elements of the Calgary Declaration are pretty well supported across the country, even in the Province of Quebec where well in excess of 50 per cent agree with the proposition that the provinces are diverse but equal, and it goes up from there.
4. Should Nova Scotia adopt a resolution based on the Calgary Declaration? Answer: Yes, by a vote of 64 per cent to 18 per cent with another 18 per cent who don't know. Across Canada, you can see in the table just below that the figures are almost identical: 65 per cent within Atlantic Canada, 70 per cent within Ontario, 64 per cent within the West agree that a resolution ought to be adopted by their Legislatures based on the Calgary Declaration.
5. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose changing the Constitution to recognize the unique character of Quebec society so long as any powers received by Quebec would also be available to the other provinces? In the Province of Nova Scotia, 78 per cent of people agreed with that proposition; 20 per cent disagreed.
So, that is the statistical story.
M. COMEAU: Coming back, then, to Page 4 of the brief, there are some questions posed by the House of Assembly resolution and I want to deal with them quickly.
"1. All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law." As indicated here, this is a statement of one of Canada's bedrock principles. It can be endorsed by every Canadian, in our view.
"2. All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status." This has to be considered vital by the majority of the people in most provinces, and I think that is the way we feel anyway.
"3. Canada is graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world." While this statement is not strictly necessary, it is a reminder of some of the social and moral principles that bind the country together, and so on.
There is another question regarding the role of Quebec, ". . . to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.". Of course, we have some thoughts on that, as you can see on Page 5.
"6. If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces." The poll comments on that as well.
"7. Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions.". Few citizens would quarrel with that statement.
Should any further statements be added? Bien peut-être, il y a certain canadiens, par exemple, certain des francophones hors Québec et parmi d'autres qui sont concernés un petit peu, et avec raison. Peut-être des considérations devraient être adressé, mais probablement d'être adressé dans un autre forum.
So, basically, Canadians, and Nova Scotians particularly, are in strong favour of the Calgary Declaration and the Nova Scotia Roundtable strongly endorses this Calgary Declaration. We believe that the Declaration, while asserting deeply-held principles of Canadians in many provinces, is also an appropriate way to show Quebecers that the rest of Canada not only accepts but celebrates their unique condition and needs.
Permettez-moi quelque réflexions personnels. Je veux simplement dire que les acadiens de cette province sont absolument, nettement et clairement des fédéralists. Les acadiens ont besoin du Québec pour le maintien de leur langue et de leur culture. Les acadiens veulent que le Québec demeure fort et veulent qui demeure dans un Canada.
We urge the select committee to recommend that the Nova Scotia House of Assembly pass a resolution based on the Calgary Declaration. Merci beaucoup, madame la présidente et membres du comité.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci beaucoup; thank you for being here. Would you entertain some questions? Mr. Carruthers.
MR. CARRUTHERS: First of all, I want to thank you both, Mr. Comeau and Mr. Cooper, because this does a lot of the work that we are trying to do.
M. COMEAU: Do you want to make a donation? (Laughter)
MR. CARRUTHERS: Well, I was thinking the same thing. What impresses me is that it has covered just about all the angles that have been looked at. One thing, when one uses the term overwhelming majority, I suppose when you look at the statistic as those who support it versus those who oppose and you see a number like 13 per cent in the oppose category and you have 60 per cent in the support category, that is a big difference. But it is still 60 per cent and when I see that it is broken down between strongly oppose or strongly support and somewhat support or somewhat oppose, sometimes you get a little worried that perhaps that of that 60 per cent, 58 per cent of them are somewhat support.
It is fairly hard to believe that anyone could look at every one of these seven declarations and oppose every one of them. You would have to start out with posing Number 1, and like you said, 95 per cent of the people would clearly support Number 1. Do you see what I am getting at? I have a little concern. It is helpful, but I wonder if your organization has felt the strong support for principles such as Numbers 5 and 7 that we were interested in.
M. COMEAU: We can provide you with more details on that stuff, but really that is a question for George. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You are putting it from a lawyer to a lawyer.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Good, if the numbers are there, we would appreciate that breakdown a little better.
MR. COOPER: Sure, we would be happy to give you the full details that underlie the poll results here.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Sure, thank you, because it is really a great help to us.
MR. RUSSELL: I am not suspicious of polls but, then again, I am suspicious of polls. I am wondering, Mr. Cooper, when this poll was taken, were people aware of what the Declaration was or were they asked, just cold, over the telephone for their opinion on various items?
MR. COOPER: It was done in October, after the Calgary Declaration, but it is certainly true to say that a lot of Canadians were very unclear as to what exactly was in the Calgary Declaration. If you then took the elements of the Calgary Declaration and said, okay, what do you think of, and then state the proposition, that is where the numbers come out. If you said to Canadians, what do you think of the Calgary Declaration, I think that the number in the don't know, or whatever, category would be very high, no question about that. Not every Canadian follows this constitutional rabbit down every rabbit hole so, therefore, you have to take the elements of the Declaration and ask people how they feel about each of those elements, which was the method here.
MR. RUSSELL: I agree with what Robert Carruthers was just saying, that this is a very useful tool, I think, for the committee. But I don't know if we should, holus bolus, say, well, the work is done, it is all there.
M. COMEAU: It is an expression on how Nova Scotians felt on that day, prodded by some of the issues here; that is all we were trying to do. We were encouraged by it, anyway.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Does your unity committee meet and talk with the other unity committees across the province?
M. COMEAU: You have a list and there are members on the South Shore and a member from Dalhousie, like Graham Murray, of the Unity Link. It is just a make-up of Nova Scotians and there are thousands of others who would be interested but we are just a bunch of people who are trying to make sure that we understand the issues and try to provide some kind of leadership in a non-partisan way. One of the things we want to do, is develop the speaker's bureau and go to Rotary Clubs and that kind of stuff. Some of our members can just give that kind of stuff. So we are just trying to . . .
MRS. O'CONNOR : Keep the country together.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fage.
MR. FAGE: I just want to also say thank you. This is our first opportunity, I believe, in any of our hearings that we have seen actual research data. We have heard many impassioned pleas, various viewpoints from economic, socio-economic to linguistic but this is actually the first one we have encountered that has research to it and I thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm has a question as well.
MR. HOLM: Well, a question or comment. In polls, I am like Mr. Russell, I believe in polls but I don't believe in polls too and sometimes it depends upon how questions are put. Just using as one example, the issue of the powers being given to one province, that they go to all. Now if that was being phrased in such ways as that could possibly result in a weaker central government versus more regionalization, as we have heard, it just strikes me that there are a lot of other spins, depending upon on how the questions are asked, what the implications could be, the poll results could change quite significantly.
M. COMEAU: You might be right. You could ask questions in a different way and we are constantly doing research. We are going to do more, our group is, across the country. We might ask the questions in a different way next time but over the years there have been other polls and generally it is pretty consistent with this kind, with what Nova Scotians feel, in a general way. Nova Scotians are federalists and they want the thing to work. Basically that is what this is saying.
I have personal views regarding what happened since Confederation to the Atlantic Provinces and I am not necessarily happy about all of that stuff but those are my own personal views and I think we have to give some more power to the provinces. That is my personal view, by the way.
MR. HOLM: Thank you and that is important information for us to have.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for rushing back to Nova Scotia to deliver the presentation. I understand there was some travelling done today to be here. So I thank you for being with us.
There are other presenters here with us this evening. Al Chaddock. You will appreciate the committee is getting weary but you have our attention.
MR. AL CHADDOCK: Yes, the hour is late, I appreciate that. My name is Al Chaddock. I am a philosopher, artist, I have been a consultant to two different federal governments and three different provincial governments on matters of the environment, the economy and culture. I have served on the provincial Round Table on Environment and Economy for four years. I have been a co-member of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy for a session in Vancouver on behalf of this province and I have represented the country at the United Nations regarding cultural issues deriving from the collapse of the East Coast fishery during UNCLOS, United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea.
I haven't submitted to you a written proposal because, quite honestly, people sitting with their back to me reading from a written proposal is very boring and I didn't want to bore anyone. After all, we are talking about our country. What we say and how we say it is often the very same thing. That is a direct quote from Mr. Marshall McLuhan, a great Canadian philosopher and we act in ignorance of his thought at great peril, as a people. The architecture of this process (Interruptions) You are still trying to correct her on her lineage. I don't really want to sit with my back to the rest of the people here if you don't mind. I am going to hold this in my hand.
When I was at university, by the way, I studied sociology and philosophy and I can inform you, with a lot of research behind me and great study, that opinion polls are designed to create public opinion, not to assess it. The fact that the provincial governments of Canada took it upon themselves to do this that we are in the process of doing now, without any political mandate to do so is yet one more example of why the people of Canada are very much united in their absolute contempt for the power elite of this country. The poll said that Mr. René Levesque would not get elected. The poll said that Meech Lake would pass. History speaks otherwise.
We are also very much united in respect for the weather. Probably the great storm in Quebec and the great flood out West have done more to unite Canada than all of this committee's work could ever hope to achieve. It reminded us more than anything that we are a northern people on the fringe of what most of the world considers and takes seriously, that we have evolved for 450 years as the most unique experiment in liberal humanism in all of history on this planet.
Do I have your attention? I think I do. Your very first item that all Canadians are equal is just bad English and very poor thought. The whole essence of a democratic experiment is based on absolute respect for individuals as being unique and valued for their uniqueness as we can possibly get it. The strength of the collective, the community, the country, is only assessed in the capabilities and empowerment of each of its citizens, the individuals.
With the devolution of powers that this Declaration is wishing to promote, we are seeing more and more emphasis put, for example, on the provincial shoulders for education. At the same time, Ottawa is feeling less responsibility to send money toward the provinces so that we are seeing professors in our newspapers in this very town two days ago saying that university students are no longer even functionally literate enough to go to university, having gone through our provincial education system. If this doesn't point out to you where we should be paying attention in terms of national evolution as a society, then I don't know what will.
In these veins courses the blood of French Huguenots who came here in 1756 and founded the Village of Jollimore. My people sold land to Joe Howe and Sir Sandford Fleming. I have also the blood of English Protestants, Welshmen and Danes. I am sorry I don't have the blood of other minorities but I think I have been here long enough that I know what it means to be a Canadian.
If Canada is anything, it is a nation by default and that is something that we should be very proud of. We haven't been born out of bloodbaths like the United States and most other European nations that we seem in our colonial inferiority complex to want to keep emulating. This is to belie our history and it is a history of reconciliation and tremendous liberal humanism. After all, when you have a great climate and a huge country to try to deal with, you have to get along and invent ways to do it.
One of our earlier speakers said the country does not work on paper, it just works in practice. That is absolutely true, especially from an European and American perspective. If everyone else wants to raise flags and call themselves nation states, let them go right ahead. They have done it and they will keep doing it and they will keep killing themselves over whose flag is prettier, whose values are more noble.
As we do this now, our political leaders are talking with military dictatorships, for the most part, in Central and South America, pimping for trans-national corporations while our country is still reeling from the worst natural disaster in its history, in 450 years, and our Prime Minister left apologetically and arrived apologetically down there. I saw it, I heard it. Is this the role we want our political leaders to fulfill? Why is there no more a clear division between politics and business?
This document, this Declaration, it is easy to see, it does not come out of very much thought. It is easy to see that it is in contempt of the historical traditions of this people and of its history. This is an act of historical revisionism and that is dangerous. There is an example right behind you. Do you see these two paintings of the royalty here? Please take a look. Do you see the blue light that is on them that the archivists have decided will not destroy them? As pieces of art, they are now destroyed because they do not look as the artist intended them to look. For us to reinterpret history, and that is our law and our Constitution, in the light of contemporary biases and prejudices, is to not get the picture.
If you want a very good example of the kind of thought that we should be pursuing, I recommend very highly, as part of your research, that you read Mr. John Ralston Saul's latest book, Reflections of a Siamese Twin. It is a brilliant metaphor by a brilliant philosopher and artist. Of course, the Siamese twins are Quebec, Canada and the rest of Canada and, as any doctor can tell you, if you try to separate Siamese twins, usually one or both will die. They are unique together. They are strong together. However a freak of history they may be, they do exist, they can survive.
Only John Ralston points out that this particular twin is actually three different heads. The Native peoples are one of those heads that can never be denied. They must not be denied. Without their wisdom, this country could not have come here. We couldn't have survived without the heroism of Tecumseh fighting on behalf of the Upper Canada rebellion, against the British, the French and the American Revolution. We owe our history to these people. We are, very much, the history of our reconciliation and collaboration and working together with all of these people.
Why, most Canadians ask, are we forever being voted as the number one country in the world in which to live by the members of the United Nations? I can only assume it is not because they have seen Canadian films or read Canadian books or heard Canadian music or seen Canadian paintings, all of which is the flowering of this great culture but which even our own citizens are ignorant of this.
The federal government, the provincial governments, all of the Parties - Liberal, Tory, NDP - spoke together for the North American Free Trade Agreement and now they are speaking not at all about MAI, except Mr. Earle has finally brought it to our attention. This is vitally important stuff. We have given away our economic sovereignty through these agreements. They are not trade agreements. They are agreements of economic integration and not with the United States but with a flagless, faceless group of people, who are what Eric Kierans - a local brilliant philosopher and politician - calls the cosmo corporate feudal elite, who are now subverting the will of all the nation states, reducing us all to the lowest common denominators of everything and calling the shots more and more every day.
[11:00 p.m.]
You want to promote Canadian unity, realize what is going on here. More and more Canadians can see and feel every day what is going on here. The absolute selling off of our physical and cultural resources for the highest priced bid and the business community is behind it - lock, stock and barrel - even though all Canadians know most jobs in this country that employ Canadians are done by small businesses, community oriented, where the profits are kept in Canada and in those communities.
In 1950, 47.8 per cent of all income tax collected in Canada was collected from corporations. Do you know what the figure is today? It is 7.8 per cent and now we are going to give them everything through MAI. This is not just shallow, hollow talk about the MAI. They want your rights and mine, as citizens, with none of our responsibilities and our governments, provincial and federal, are going along with this treason. Carry this message to them. We will not put up with it. We cannot do this. This is in betrayal of the wisdom of 450 years of the most incredible history of reconciliation of liberal humanism and our culture is fantastic in all of its dimensions. Just try to experience it, however, because the free trade agreements we have signed ourselves into with the cooperation of our provincial governments.
Many of these Premiers who are behind this, saw fit to not read it but to pass it. As Mr. John Crosbie was proud to tell us, he hadn't read it but he passed it and what he passed was acceptance forever in stone that 95 per cent of all screen time in Canada, would be American product, that 90 per cent of every book and magazine and textbook in every school in Canada would be American written and published.
The biggest problem that we face as a people is we don't know who the hell we are anymore. We are ignorant of ourselves and in that we are greatly united. This is a travesty. This is a total betrayal of what all those young fellows have died for in all these foreign battlefields for so long. Have them come back and show them what the national interest of Canada is now that would be worth such a sacrifice. It would be very difficult to say, this is the Canadian interest.
The last act that Mr. Mulroney perpetrated upon the people of this country was to change the Bank of Canada Act so that it could act as a Crown Corporation. No longer could the people of Canada, through their Parliament and their chosen representatives, like you, dictate that the economy would be shaped to suit the people of Canada. What that did was make it so that we now had to shape our citizens to suit the economy, shaped by other people who are not Canadian and wouldn't want to be.
You know this is true what I am telling you. You live this every day with your children. I hear you speaking about what you want your grandchildren to feel, to know, to live here and the fears you express. Indeed, it is probably why many of you are in public life
and why I am willing to do this right now. In this room, in this building, we won freedom of the press for the entire world. We won the first responsible Legislature in the world, in this building and yet very much this process that we are doing here today, this is in contempt of that spirit. Study your histories, then you will know who we are and you will find that we have tremendous unity.
Unfortunately, our school children, especially those in Quebec, are no longer taught because their government is impoverished through lack of transfer of wealth from the whole of the collective, that Canada is very much the creation of the people of Quebec, to guard their cultural, economic, political interests. It goes back to Mr. LaFontaine and Mr. Baldwin and a handshake in which we formed the first Canadian Assembly in Montreal and the power elite of Montreal burned it down. They didn't want anything to do with democracy and they shipped thousands of Quebecers and Ontario people out of the country.
That great, beautiful song, Un Canadien Errant was not written by a Quebec separatist or even a Quebecer. It was written in New England, in Boston, by a Canadian nationalist who spoke French. I urge you to read those lyrics.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you to wrap up, sir.
MR. CHADDOCK: Yes, you can.
In here, culture is used in relation to the North American Indians and ethnic minorities but when it comes to speaking about the English and the French we talk about language. I suggest one of the problems is that the United States speaks mostly English and most of what we encounter culturally, in both French Canada and the rest of Canada is American English cultural product to the point where we don't even see that we are a distinct culture, very distinct.
If you want to really promote the interest of Canadian unity, do not weaken Ottawa. Ottawa, because of the miracle of minority government that it allows, has always allowed Canada to be governed from left of centre, the humanist perspective. Whenever we have gone to the right of centre, as with Mulroney and now Chretien and a few times previous, we have had nothing but the breaking up of our country, the promoting of disunity.
There is no media here tonight. We had Global TV. Where is CBC? This is an act of politics. Come on, we are not naive. This is to polarize and publicize and energize public opinion. Where are they? You have to pay attention to forum. I am sorry that I have come in on the last session. I wish I could have been with you in the earliest session.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You are perfectly welcome to send in a written submission. Friday is the deadline for that to be submitted. I would like to thank you, sir, for coming forward.
MR. CHADDOCK: I thank you for your time.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the members? Thank you very much, Mr. Chaddock, for being with us this evening.
Marian Pape, Voice of Women.
MS. MARIAN PAPE: Am I the last?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: No, you are not the last so I would ask you to keep to the point.
MS. MARIAN PAPE: Madam Chairman and committee members, I apologize for not having copies of my submission but I am going to e-mail it into the website before Friday. I just have a very few words to say this evening about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the MAI. I know it has been mentioned previously so I will try not to repeat.
I find this unity hearing is a wonderful example of the democratic process at work, people being able to voice their feelings and their concerns about issues. This is the way that we confirm our beliefs and contribute to an enlightened nation. This is why I cannot understand why the federal government is proceeding with its undemocratic process towards signing the Multilateral Agreement on Investment with other OECD countries around the world.
The MAI is a treaty that is designed to establish a new world order. Under the MAI, foreign investors would have the right to sue signatory governments for creating any legislation that is deemed prejudicial to their corporate interests. Cases could be tried in secret and there would be no possibility of appeal. As you have heard before, Canada is scheduled to accede to the MAI in May 1998 which would lock us in for the next 20 years.
My problem is with the process in which the MAI is being developed in the country and around the world. It has the potential to eliminate the ability of the federal government to have control over such areas as environmental regulations, labour standards, cultural sovereignty and regional economic development. I wanted to let you know that in Nova Scotia there is a very broad coalition that is now forming to become better informed about the MAI and to set up input to the federal government on that. It is a very complex agreement. Many of us are not economists and so it is really important that there be a process for explaining this to Canadians. That has not been happening at all.
I am not opposed to international investment or bringing investment into our province, in fact, I believe that that is a large part of our future. However, we do need to pay attention to the fact that we either control our own destiny or become victim to the international trade imperative.
Paul Hellyer, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, spoke on the MAI by saying the following, "The Multilateral Agreement on Investment is the most frightening proposition put before the Canadian people in my lifetime.".
The Director General of the World Trade Organization wrote, we are writing the constitution of a single global economy.
What I would like to recommend to the Nova Scotia Legislature Select Committee on National Unity is to ask the federal government to develop a large scale public consultation process on the MAI before embarking on this international trade agreement. That's all I have to say.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thanks very much.
MR. HOLM: Just a very brief question and that is, if I may, it is your opinion then that the MAI could compromise our ability to live up to the principles in the Calgary Declaration?
MS. PAPE: The links between the two is certainly the way I see it. It is not really carved in stone but I think that there is a potential danger for that, a very real danger for that.
MR. CARRUTHERS: This is probably a silly question but this is the 10th meeting we have had and we never heard the issue of the MAI brought up, I don't think, did we? Before tonight?
MR. FAGE: Two other times.
MR. CARRUTHERS: But tonight there are three in a row, I was just wondering if there was something that happened lately that this particular night was . . .
MS. PAPE: It is very true, actually, when I mentioned the coalition group that was formed, there has been a lot of information on the Internet and I know that it actually hasn't been very well available for people in print. But just recently I understand that at the hearings that are happening throughout Manitoba that this is being brought up. It is actually starting to gather some momentum across the country.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I guess what I am getting at is that last night no one mentioned it and tonight a lot of people mentioned it. You don't have any reason to know why that is, do you?
MS. PAPE: Many of us last night were actually at the Halifax Regional Council but there has been a lot of just immediate energy in the last little while. I did want to mention that if anybody wants to have copies of the actual agreement, I would be very happy to supply it in print to this group. I know you asked earlier. I find it difficult . . .
MR. MACEWAN: . . . didn't have any, maybe you can help. We had one, forgive me.
MS. PAPE: I would be happy to send a copy over to your office.
MR. FAGE: Just a question in that regard. You seem to have quite a bit of information about that particular agreement. The GATT that was just signed, are you aware of the context, the agreements that are now currently in place that you seem to be worried about which currently have all those regulations in them. The GATT agreement, currently we are going through a five year agreement which will lower internal subsidies by 36 per cent over a five year period. That affects all programs that are not absolutely the same across the country, ACOA, for example. It was raised by an earlier person who apparently didn't understand the context of the trade agreements that are currently in force and have been endorsed, propose and do the same things if you are describing the same manner as the agreement you are talking about?
MS. PAPE: I do confess that making a comparison between GATT and MAI is not something that I would even dare to attempt right now, but I think that the parameters are somewhat different and I think that MAI, because we don't actually have the final negotiated package right now, it is pretty difficult to make that comparison. But it is the potential danger that we are concerned about.
MRS. O'CONNOR: I have a question and it is just a strictly yes or no question. I appreciate your coming and talking about the MAI, but when we sit down to do the resolution and we want to know the number of people who are in favour or not in favour of the Calgary Declaration, do I take it that you are a no?
MS. PAPE: No, I wouldn't say so; I wouldn't say that I am not in favour of the Calgary Declaration.
MRS. O'CONNOR: So, you are in favour?
MS. PAPE: What I wanted to do is draw attention to this particular issue tonight.
MRS. O'CONNOR: I appreciate that, but the resolution is written on the number of people who appear , the yeses and noes, and that is a different topic. I would just like to know whether I put you down as a yes or a no and I take it you are a . . .
MS. PAPE: I would say that I have some reservations for the Calgary Declaration, then.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Michael Hinks.
MR. MICHAEL HINKS: Good evening, everyone. My name is Michael Hinks and I am a concerned citizen. I did go up to the unity rally in 1995 to help the cause of Canada and, believe me, I did feel a real threat to Canadian unity there because on the streets of Sainte-Catherine and Place du Canada, I talked to many people, especially a lot of English Canadians, recent immigrants and first-generation Canadians. I could feel the fear and the threat that was there. I don't know, maybe it was only me, but I could actually feel it; I could feel a distress. So, I think it is important that we would fix the Canadian unity problem.
I would like all the people here to imagine that this is 1867 and Nova Scotia is ready to join Confederation, then suddenly the Quebec delegation states that they want distinct or unique status. I wonder if Nova Scotia would have joined the Canadas or remained its own distinct society or its own colony? I really wonder. Maybe it might have changed things if that had been proposed right at the time of Confederation. Maybe Canada would have used a neutral name, for instance, maybe the United federation, to name our great federation that we do have, to show that we were more than Canada, instead of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick being absorbed into the Canadas, maybe a neutral name would have given everybody good equal status from the footing, from the foundation of its inception.
I would now like to refer to a letter that I wrote to Ralph Klein before the Calgary Declaration. The first part of it just goes over a few things. It is pretty bland, a little stale, but it does get a little crisper because I think in my solution, like tonight I heard a lot of facts, figures and opinions, but I didn't really hear any solutions. I didn't really hear one solution that we could bring forward, maybe, that would help out this great federation of ours. So, I will read from this; I think it is still relevant.
I understand the crisis of the current situation which the Dominion of Canada is now facing. I think we have to start from scratch. Ottawa is incapable of solving our unity crisis for several reasons. Firstly, Ottawa is too controlled by interest groups from Ontario and Quebec. Secondly, Ottawa is out of touch with everyday Canadians, especially the West and the Atlantic region. The bureaucracy is so big in Ottawa that it has a life on its own, with its own agenda and that sort of strays things a little bit.
Thirdly, Ottawa is so consumed with Quebec that it doesn't take an objective view of the Quebec situation. Ottawa keeps looking for answers that come from within Quebec, which is not necessarily the case, because it could come from the rest of Canada too. I believe that ordinary Canadians should be given a chance to give their views on a new solution, if their views are intelligible and articulate, of course.
On the unity table right now there are 4 solutions to the unity crisis. Firstly, there is the status quo, but Quebec or the West doesn't want that, so we must ignore it. Secondly, Canada could give Quebec distinct society. This was offered in the Charlottetown Accord and it failed. It was rejected even by Quebec. We must realize that Quebec wants special powers, not symbolic gestures. Thirdly, there is the sovereignty option for Quebec, but that's what we
are all fighting against, although a referendum outside Quebec asking all Canadians if they want Quebec to stay within Canada could surprise the bureaucrats in Ottawa with its results. Fourthly, there is the equality of all provinces and devolution of federal powers to the provinces option. This fourth option is by far the most intelligent and fair. I think this option could be great for Canada and its people, but how can it work when Quebec will not participate in any meetings?
It seems that we are in the same predicament as before, but there is another way to solve this impasse. I think the fourth option is the right way to proceed, but how? That fourth option would be the equality of all provinces and the devolution of federal powers option. Why won't Quebec decide to stay in Canada, even if it could become sovereignty-associated with Canada? Maybe René Levesque was on to something when he came up with that sovereignty association back then. I think maybe we should go over some of the stuff that he wanted because it sounds pretty relevant in today's Canada.
The problem that Quebec wants to rid itself of, once and for all, is Canada itself. You must remember that Canada was really only Quebec. That was the true Canada, Upper Canada was cut out of French Canada and stolen by the British - well, I will just leave it at that. When Upper and Lower Canada were joined with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which was Confederation, French Canada further lost its identity into the forced union but so did Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; they sort of lost their identity too because they became Canada, which was actually only like Upper and Lower Canada in the first place. The Dominion of Canada with Ottawa being in Upper Canada, Ontario, and assuming complete command of French Canada, Quebec, and the former Acadia, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, I think it led to the resentment that Quebec has for Canada today. I am absolutely sure that Quebec is not rejecting the provinces and territories that make up Canada, but Quebec is rejecting being associated with a federation named Canada, because that means domination and domination by Ottawa. It goes back a long way, I think that is the true roots of the problem.
I think that the Dominion of Canada cannot be saved in its present form to include Quebec anyway. In order to include Quebec in a new form of federation, the Canadian federation must evolve into a new identity-giving entity. By this, I mean that the name, Dominion of Canada, must be changed to show the true character and diversity of our federation. I suggest that the Dominion of Canada be changed to the name of the united federation, which maybe at first, like in 1867, if we were going to give Quebec special powers, maybe the name might have been changed from Canada into the united federation and we could have moved on there from a good foundation.
This name change will show Quebec that the rest of Canada is willing to modify and change Canada in a real and substantive way. It would certainly also help future provinces belong, so we do not get the problem of separation, maybe by a different province, maybe Newfoundland or maybe some other provinces, because with provinces, you never know, one
region can get rich real quick. I see that maybe in Newfoundland in the future with the oil revenues. If things work out, you might see a little separatism come to the front there, because at one time Newfoundland was its own country. A country that joined a new country.
MR. MACEWAN: It joined Canada by a referendum.
MR. HINKS: By two referenda.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, that's right, a series of referenda.
MR. HINKS: Okay. This new name change will also be good for the rest of the provinces, territories and First Nations people. We will all be equal members of the new united federation, associated with each other on the surface but distinctively in control of our own identity and future. Within the context of the united federation, Quebec can take its rightful place as being the largest in area and the only unilingual French member of the united federation. That would sort of help them feel proud and distinct and then they wouldn't be so insecure.
Newfoundland can also take its rightful place as being the oldest member of the united federation and even Nova Scotia will finally be able to show its true colours instead of being in Canada's shadow, I mean Ontario and Quebec, for so long, ever since Confederation. Even Alberta will be able to emphasize its unique way of life and its traditions within a united federation. All the other members will also show their own style and distinctiveness.
Another important wrong that we can right be refining and redefining Canada is that we will finally have the means in which to acknowledge and invite the First Nations peoples into a united federation that will treat them as members with their own distinct identity and past. What is truly tearing this country apart is the complete lack of identity that people are experiencing or are being forced to accept, usually from Ottawa. I see that by the CBC, like Canada sometimes is driven, I think Ontario thinks that Nova Scotia is the same as Ontario and Newfoundland is and so is B.C. but it is not the case. I think we are all pretty distinctive even though we are all English-speaking peoples.
I think it is truly time to come to grips about what Canada truly is, not a single nation but a united federation of distinct members, each with its distinct past and identity. As the decades and centuries go by, time and geography will seal the distinctiveness of all the members of the united federation but this distinctiveness will be the hidden asset that will catapult a united federation into forever greatness with a continual array of new ideas emanating from different members all the time. These new ideas will keep the members of the united federation on the cutting edge of tomorrow, not because we will have different values and standards but because we will have different ways of doing things and looking at problems.
Do not forget, the united federation that I am proposing will have standards, just like the Canada of today because it will be the Canada of today but they will be flexibly applied and not forced upon any member. The united federation, if it is to replace the Dominion of Canada, will give up most of its powers to its members. The united federation will be loosely based on a sovereignty association membership or an European Union style federation. We must remember that Canada is only an idea but it is made up of very real parts or members. Sometimes we forget that. That is the physical reality of the matter. A change of name from the Dominion of Canada to the united federation will not change the provinces or territories but it will reflect the reality of our situation, giving Quebec what it is truly looking for.
Another reason why I think that the united federation will be acceptable to Quebec is the misconception by Quebecers who think English Canada is all the same. Believe me when I say that Newfoundlanders are different from Ontarians. That can be said for British Columbia and Nova Scotia. We all speak English but we are different. I can give you an example, like Australia is an English country. We may as well say Australia and Canada are the same. What about other English, like New Zealand, what about Ireland and what about Great Britain and the United States? We are all English. Because we are English, Quebec seems to lump us all in one sum, one people - the rest of Canada. I feel insulted by Quebecers who lump all of English Canada into one people. I wonder where would New Brunswick fit into that group? It is the only bilingual member of our federation. I would guess it wouldn't fall under French Quebec or English Canada.
I do see hope for everyone in Canada to stay together but not in its present form. It is about time that we Canadians really did think about our future. Quebec is giving us their view of the sovereignty option because they want a new and refined federation, one based on the current European union but it seems like we are not even investigating that option that we do have. In actuality, we have what the Europeans want and might never attain, political, social, economic and monetary union.
[11:30 p.m.]
I think the members of the panel here tonight talked about a federation and there was a guy who listed some but I think the federation that Canada most resembles is the European Union and that is a federation of nations. So just think about that for a minute. It makes sense. We, as Canadians, must change the way our current system is in order to fully realize what we have. I do think the option of the united federation is a viable solution to our current problems but it is also a blueprint and a better working sovereignty association. With a united federation government we will be more subordinate to its members rather than the members being subordinate to it.
Why shouldn't the former Canadas, Quebec and Ontario, and the rest of us, be known as the united federation? We do have the United States and we do have the United Kingdom but the united federation will be so much more if only anyone will realize the enormity and
efficiency of this new system. I think the solution is a new solution and should be studied. Actually, I wrote most of this article before I went up to the unity rally in 1995 but I never did act on it because it seemed that the federal government could formulate the solution to our current crisis. How wrong was I? Really wrong.
Distinct society or status quo will not suffice and that is all the federal government can come up with. It makes one wonder why we do have a federal government, especially in its present form. I would now like to read a quote actually that I made up, that sort of emphasizes some great empires that sort of came and went and I think if we don't watch out what we are doing, I think our great empire, our united federation, is going to fall flat on its face. It goes something like this. There were many great empires that have come and gone and they all have failed because of a certain mistake. That mistake was over-centralization. At first, centralization creates empires. It grows and thrives. It devours anything and everything in its way but after the extended and over-extended feast is finished, it realizes that it has become complacent and tyrannical and smothers the parts of the empire that made it so. To me that sounds like Ottawa but I think Ottawa is getting more flexible in maybe the last five years because they have to. There is no choice. The empire will crumble if they don't do something about it.
So I see Canada in its present form falling into this category, too much over-centralization and not enough flexibility. That would be a really bad tragedy if it happens. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Hinks, for coming forward at this late hour to present your thoughts. Are there any questions or comments from the committee?
MR. HINKS: It might seem radical to you but it is not really radical, I don't think.
MR. CARRUTHERS: We have heard much more radical ideas.
MR. HINKS: It is a change but it is sort of staying the same but at least it is acknowledging all different parts of society and maybe that could help Quebec.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Very reasonable, thank you.
MR. HINKS: Okay, thanks.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir, for coming forward. I want to thank everybody who hung in there to the eleventh hour and for being with us tonight. Just a few left who are not here because they have to be, but I do thank the committee members again for taking part in this Unity Committee and for travelling the province and listening and asking the questions they have of the presenters.
MR. CARRUTHERS: It was great fun.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you all very much.
MR. HOLM: And the next week or so will be even more fun.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: And the next couple of weeks will be fun. Thank you very much.
[The committee adjourned at 11:35 p.m.]
