On October 30th, 1995, Canada as we knew it, was on the verge of separation. An eight year old boy sat next to his grandfather as they watched the unfolding events on the television screen. That young child was raised to be proud of his country and taught to defend what he thought was just and good. Canada was a wonderful nation with a rich history and that young boy could not comprehend why some people wished to no longer be a part of it.

                As the news coverage continued, the boy ran up to his bedroom and found a very small Canadian flag from his keepsake drawer. In that cold winter night, in Stony Plain, Alberta, he waved that flag until the last votes came in! I was that young boy; that was the first political moment in my life and ever since then I have chosen to believe in a strong and unified nation that stands united as brethren. I believe in the dominion of Canada from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

                The failed coalition of 2008 ^[1] showed one important fact. Certain people are willing to do anything to grasp at power, including signing an agreement with a political party that was the driving force behind the 1995 referendum. It is important for leaders to stand for principles; signing on with the Bloc Quebecois to form a national government is not just crazy, it creates a national unity crisis all over again. People throughout Canada who have no voting power for electing the Bloc Quebecois must now have their national elected government work in collaboration with them? This idea does not make any sense and that is why the coalition was defeated.

                To see some of the highlights of the Canadian Coalition controversy please visit my video page and view the "Rally for Canada" video.

                The Bloc Quebecois is very sneaky in the way they represent Quebec. Not everyone who votes for the Bloc believes in separation. Many who vote for the Bloc believes they are a party which will fight for the best initiatives for the region and that is their democratic right to do so. The Bloc is sitting in waiting for the perfect moment to restart the separatist talks. Being a part of the coalition would have given the Bloc the perfect opportunity to show how the Canadian government was dysfunctional and in my opinion, would have definitely created an environment for another referendum. Serious precautions must be made when dealing with a separatist party; the Bloc should never be given any control of national governance for it will increase the credibility of any their arguments.

                Prime Minister Brian Mulroney made statements about separatism and the Meech Lake Accord as highlighted below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Mulroney's Statement ^[2]

                Today, renewed federalism beats sovereignty as the majority preference of Quebecers every time a poll is held. Unfortunately, there is no proposal for renewed federalism from either provincial or federal governments at this time - nor, apparently, any in progress. Such a proposal could win a referendum in the year 2000 by attracting Quebec federalists, including the hundreds of thousands who have reluctantly concluded that such an effort will not soon be made. If it came early enough, such a proposal might even eliminate the prospect of a referendum by helping to elect a federalist government at the next provincial election.

                The Meech Lake accord contained concepts and clauses that had all been offered at different times, in different forms in the past by the previous government of Canada. Essentially, Meech Lake offered the additional security Quebec needed to sign the 1982 constitution and resolve once and for all the question of Quebec's place in Canada.

                All of the provisions of Meech - but one - were offered to and accepted by all the provinces. The only provision unique to Quebec was that which allowed for the recognition of that province as a "distinct society within Canada." This was simply a recognition of reality that added no new powers to the National Assembly of Quebec nor removed any from Ottawa. It was an interpretative clause that would guide the courts in their assessments of Canadian reality.

                In fact, the "distinct-society" provision was one half of a new interpretative clause. The other half, largely forgotten by the critics, was the recognition, for the first time by 11 governments, that "linguistic duality" - the English-French dimension - is a fundamental characteristic of confederation.

                But Meech's opponents conjured up ominous and apocalyptic predictions of how such a provision would be interpreted by the courts suggesting the destruction of Canada was at hand - and many Canadians assumed this would happen.

                Well, last June, the Right Honourable Brian Dickson, the distinguished former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada discussed precisely that: "I know that this issue (distinct society) remains a matter of some controversy in Western Canada. But let me say quite directly that I have no difficulty with the concept. In fact, the courts are already interpreting the Charter of Rights and the constitution in a manner that takes into account Quebec's distinctive role in protecting and promoting its francophone character. As a practical matter, therefore, entrenching formal recognition of Quebec's distinctive character in the constitution would not involve a significant departure from the existing practice in our courts."

                So much for the judicial calamity some had forecast.

                Ironically, because of federal government commitments in recent years, the provisions of Meech are today almost all in effect - not constitutionalized, but in effect.

                Imagine that: the big bad Meech Lake accord so vigorously rejected by some 10 years ago has or had been largely accepted in Canadian practice - with no unfortunate consequences for the federation. In other words, we got all of the anguish and none of the benefits. And we lost the opportunity to destroy the most powerful and compelling separatist argument in the last referendum - namely, the visible lack of Quebec's signature on the constitution.

                Are there lessons to be learned from this and other experiences?

                Canadians, and especially some of their provincial political leaders, must stop taking for granted the advantages that all of us derive from belonging to one, united Canada. Depending on where we live, the difference between a united Canada and a Canada fractured in perhaps five or six pieces is a brutal drop in our standard of living and an immediate evaporation of our influence in the world. Even the most prosperous and self-reliant regions are greater for being parts of the greater union that is Canada. Our futures are all diminished by disunity.

                It follows that in all parts of Canada, we and our leaders must stop treating constitutional issues as a zero-sum game in which an improvement for one part of Canada implies a loss for other parts of the country.

                Compromise in Canada is not a sign of weakness. It is both honourable and essential to keep our country together.

                Unnecessary discord among federalists on this issue, whether generated by political partisanship, rigid doctrine or vanity, play into the hands of the separatists who argue that Canadians cannot agree on anything except the status quo. They are counting on us doing nothing again.

                This focus on Quebec is temporary and does not in any way lessen the importance of the rest of Canada. It simply means that Canada agrees to solve this problem now so that together, collectively, all Canadians can deal with urgent economic and social problems tomorrow in an atmosphere of political stability and predictability.

                If there is a lack of leadership at the national level, the provincial premiers must fill the vacuum. The constitutional-amendment process can be initiated not just in Parliament but in any provincial legislature.

                Among federalists, on this vital question of national unity and constitutional reform, let us begin again. Let us wipe the slate clean of partisanship and find a new formula, vocabulary and timetable for renewal so that, for our children and their generation, this matter will be resolved.

                Meech was not the only casualty in Canada's search for unity. Fulton-Favreau was never accepted. The 1971 Victoria formula failed and the 1982 amendments, as noted, passed without Quebec. Charlottetown did not receive sufficient public support.

                I believe it was a mistake for the government of Quebec to reject Victoria. It contained most of the elements long sought by Quebec and other provinces. It was a good deal for Canada.

                I believe it was a mistake for the government of Canada to proceed with patriation over the objection of the Quebec National Assembly. We changed the rules of the game affecting Quebec without Quebec's consent. The British North America Act had served us pretty well for 115 years. Surely, we could have waited awhile for the election of a federalist Quebec government because, as Senator Ernest Manning predicated in 1981 in arguing against proceeding, "There is no real profit in gaining a new constitution if in the process you lost a nation."

                I believe it was a mistake for certain signatories of Meech in 1990 not to secure its ratification as agreed.

                So, how many mistakes does a country get to make? At what point does the insistence on perfection become the enemy of the good?

                Some 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson said: "I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not approve, but I doubt whether any other convention may be able to make a better constitution. For when you assemble men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? I consent to this constitution because I expect no better and because I am not sure it is not the best."

                In the eyes of many, constitutional reform is a tar baby and no one wants to touch it. To do so is both unfashionable and unpopular.

                But prime ministers are not chosen to seek popularity. They are chosen to provide leadership. There are times when Canadians must be told not what they want to hear but what they have to know. And what they have to know is that, of the various problems that confront Canada, only one - the Quebec problem - has the potential to break up the country. They have to know that the problem cannot be solved without a constitutional initiative, and this if our leaders, federal and provincial, persist in putting it off, we will fight another referendum with a hand and a half tied behind our backs.

                There is nothing we can do that will attract the support of committed separatists. But the majority of Quebecers remain attached to Canada. If we can make the reasonable constitutional changes that will secure their place in the Canada of the 21st century (and which threaten no one else's place) French-Canadian Quebecers will respond strongly to reclaim those golden opportunities from a country they explored and settled in the cold and brutal winters of their youth, over 350 years ago.

                We have to confront the problem of our disunity for what it is - a completely unnecessary impediment to our future prosperity. Canada's prime minister - whoever holds the office after the next election - must engage the provinces and summon the people of Canada to weigh what we have to gain from resolving this problem and what we have to lose from failure. Before Canadians will be able to enjoy fully the promise of the 21st century, they must deal with a problem created and unresolved in the 20th century.

                Before the turn of the century, the prime minister must place before Canadians a compelling vision of our future together. The promise of that future will heal our divisions. It will create the solidarity and sense of purpose needed for great achievement. And it will restore the pride and unity that define a great nation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                An important solution for defeating separatist talks in Quebec is to keep pressure on the political powers that will once again try and start another referendum. By supporting federalist parties in Quebec, we can affirm the next generation sees the economic and cultural advantages of remaining as a distinct society within Canada. The old separatists are slowly going away; my fear is that before they see separatism fail they will go to drastic alternatives to re-spark controversy and rekindle old arguments. Canadians from coast to coast are proud of our nation and we hope to continue to build this great country along with our countrymen in Quebec.

References

[1] : Canadian Parliamentry Dispute

[2] : UNI.ca - Canadian Unity Database