sign in sign up
<<
Home , Calgary Declaration, Canadian Confederation, Charlottetown Accord, Elijah Harper, Meech Lake Accord, Preston Manning

Ch a p t e r Si x t e e n National

Figure 16-1 Québec cartoonist Terry Mosher, also known as Aislin, drew this Figure 7-1cartoon In 1970, in 1990 to show celebrated his opinion its 100th anniversary of enteringof the into way . constitutional As debates part of hadthat celebration, in 1971 a statueaffected (below) Canadian of Métis unity. leader was unveiled on the grounds of the Manitoba Legislature in . In the following years, controversies erupted over the statue; over Riel’s naked and contorted figure, and over the role Riel played in the time leading up to Manitoba’s entrance into Confederation and beyond. In 1995, the statue was removed from the grounds of the legislature to Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface and was replaced on the grounds of the legislature by another statue (left). The removal and replacement of the original statue caused a controversy of its own. Figure 16-2 In 1995, just days before Québec held a referendum on whether to separate from , thousands of from across the country descended on Montréal to tell Québec that they wanted the to stay united with Canada.

image P7-39

460 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r How has the question of national unity influenced federalism, constitutional debate, and political change?

To explore this essentialEssential question,Question, you you will will Ke y Te r m s • examine the issues,attempts events, to have and Québec people signthat theshaped Canadian the history ofConstitution the Métis in through Western the Canada Meech from Lake 1869–1885 Accord and including the assimilatedMeech Lake Accord MarginalizationCharlottetown - the sale of Rupert’s Accord Land MéAccord tis National • investigate the debate over Québec’s place in the Canadian - the Red River Resistance CalgaryCommittee Declaration - the role and legacy of Louis Riel MichifClarity Act • - explore the Manitoba the formation Act, 1870of new federal political parties and their reconciliationRomanow Report regional interests - the dispersal of the Métis river lots • discover challenges in federal–provincial relations scrip - the Northwest Resistance square-mile lots Getting• examine the Startedpolitical, social, and economic lives of the Métis surveyors before and after Confederation. When the Act was patriated in 1982, the Government of Québec refused to give its assent—approval for theGetting act. Québec’s Started refusal kept alive the question of its place in Confederation.Study the two statues Should of Québec Métis leader be given Louis status Riel as on a pagedistinct 100. society? How Thisare these question two statues opened similar? the door How for areother they regions different? to also The question controversy whetherabout the the statues Canadian is an importantgovernment part understood of understanding or appreciated history. their It is aboutdistinctiveness. understanding Discontent the past became to better so strongunderstand in the the West present. that some beganTo tounderstand talk about Riel, separation you must from Canada. National unity became looka growing deeply concern and widely for many into the Canadian citizens and for the federal past.government. What different perceptions and• Examine perspectives Figure about 16-1 Riel on pagedo 460. What youdoes see thisin these cartoon statues? say about the toll that Enduring Understandings • Wasnational he a unity victim debates of colonialism? had on Canada? Enduring Understandings • DidHow he, might like ordinaryso many historicalCanadians be By the end of this chapter, you will gain a greater leaders,affected takeby debates charge aboutand help national to unity?understanding that: • Nouvelle-France, Acadie, Québec, and • shape Examine the Figurefuture 16-2.of the What West? does this rally• The relationshipfrancophone between communities Aboriginal and across non-Aboriginal Canada • Wassay about he a martyrCanadians’ for all desire for national peoples mayhave be broadlyplayed adefined role in asshaping a transition Canadian from Canadians?unity? Do you think the same would pre-contacthistory through and the identity. stages of co-existence, colonialism, and cultural and political resurgence • Washappen he theif the founder West wantedand protector to separate from • As a result of Québec’s unique identity and Canada? Why or why not? • Since the beginningshistory, its of place colonization, in the Canadian , confederation Inuit, of a sovereign Métis state? and Métis peoplescontinues have to bestruggled the subject to retain of debate. and later, to • Was he, as many during his time regain their• French–English cultural, political relations and economic play an ongoingrights believed, a traitor to Canada? • Nouvelle-France,role in Acadie, the debate Québec, about and majority–minority francophone • Was he all of these? None of communitiesresponsibilities across Canada and have rights played of citizens a role inin Canada. shaping Canadian history and identity these? Or is there truth, in part, • The role of government and the division of to all of them? • The history ofpowers governance and responsibilities in Canada is characterized in Canada’s federal by a transition systemfrom indigenous are subjects self-government of ongoing negotiation. through French and British colonial rule to a self-governing confederation of and territories

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 461 ‘ Thinking Historically Th e Pl a c e o f Qu e b e c i n Ca n a d a

HS Establishing historical significance E Using primary-source evidence The Rise of Québec to 1980 C&C Identifying continuity and change The marked the beginning of another rise in Québec CHECKFORWARD C C Analyzing cause and consequence nationalism. Growing pride in Québécois culture inspired a new sense HP Taking a historical perspective of nationalism in Québec. Many Québécois believed that their culture and identity would be better protected if their province separated from ED Considering the ethical dimensions of history Canada. In the 1960s and 1970s, there were violent reminders of this desire to separate, including the FLQ crisis. Beginning when René Lévesque founded the Parti Québécois in 1968, Québec nationalism took a new political goal. It become focused on achieving sovereignty for Québec. In CHECKBACK 1980, the first sovereignty-association referendum was held in Québec. Although sovereignty-association was defeated, the referendum showed that You learned about the growth of Québec nationalism and the a large number of Québécois wanted to pursue the idea of independence. FLQ in Chapter 14. Recognition as a As you learned in Chapter 15, Québec did not sign the 1982 Constitution Act because it felt excluded from the final deliberations. In spite of this, the has ruled that the Constitution applies to Québec whether it has signed the Constitution or not. Prime Minister Trudeau believed that patriating the Constitution would dampen the sovereignty movement in Québec. However, some Canadians believe that the process increased the strength and determination of Québec séparatistes. Many Québécois, whether sovereigntists or federalists, sought the recognition of Québec as a distinct society. Among those who supported Québec sovereignty, the recognition of Québec as a distinct society was viewed as an essential first step toward separation from Canada.

Changing Politics in Canada In 1984, Trudeau stepped down as leader of Canada’s Liberal Party and as prime minister. Trudeau was replaced by , who quickly called for a federal election, hoping to win another Liberal victory. But by then, the Liberal Party had been in power for most of the previous twenty years. The party faced a long list of complaints, and in the election, the Liberals were soundly defeated. The Progressive Conservative Party and its new leader, , came to power.

Figure 16-3 Brian Mulroney’s victory in the September 1984 federal election marked a significant change in Canadian politics. After almost twenty years of Liberal governments, Canadians elected a Progressive Conservative majority government.

462 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r A bilingual Québécois, Prime Minister Mulroney had strong support in his home province, especially among federalists. He viewed the failure to include Québec in the Constitution as a key political issue and promised to deal with Québécois dissatisfaction over the way former prime minister had patriated the Constitution. Mulroney believed that the time was right to persuade the Québec government to sign the Constitution. René Lévesque had retired; the Parti Québécois had been defeated in the 1985 provincial election; and Québec’s new Liberal , , was a federalist.

HS How might Québec’s acceptance of the Constitution have affected the lives of Canadians in general? How would gaining Québec’s acceptance have been historically significant?

Bourassa’s Demands In response to Mulroney’s pressure on Québec to sign the Constitution Act, Premier Bourassa established five demands that he said would have to be included in any new constitutional arrangement so that Québec could sign with dignity and honour: • veto power for Québec on any constitutional amendments • input for the province on the naming of justices to the Supreme Court of Canada • limits on how the federal government spent funds in Québec • increased power for Québec on immigration • recognition of Québec as a distinct society

Figure 16-4 Robert Bourassa celebrates Initial Agreement at Meech Lake a victory for the Liberal Party of Mulroney launched discussions to resolve the Constitution issue, and Québec in the 1989 provincial election. in April 1987, a first ministers’ conference brought Mulroney and the Bourassa was premier of the province provincial premiers together at Meech Lake, Québec. Mulroney’s goal was from 1970 to 1976 and then again from to persuade the premiers to accept that Québec’s language and culture 1985 to 1994. made it a distinct society. Much to the surprise of a country that had become used to constitutional stalemate, Mulroney and the ten premiers agreed to a package of amendments to the Constitution. In June 1987, they all signed the Meech Lake Accord in . It appeared as if constitutional harmony was finally achieved.

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 463 Provincial Ratification Process Because the Meech Lake Accord would amend the Constitution, the premiers at the conference agreed that all ten provincial legislatures had to ratify—formally approve—the deal within three years of the first provincial approval. In June 1987, Québec’s National Assembly became the first province to ratify the accord, thereby setting a deadline of June 23, 1990, to gain the approval of all provinces. Although Québec accepted the accord almost immediately, other provinces faced a more difficult time. Manitoba, , and Newfoundland and had recently elected new provincial governments. The premiers of these provinces had reservations about the Meech Lake Accord. Under the leadership of Premier , the Manitoba government had supported the accord in 1987. When and the Progressive Conservative Party came to power in 1988, however, Filmon was initially opposed to the accord. Although Premier Filmon later supported the agreement, the Manitoba Legislature also had to agree to the terms of the Meech Lake Accord. In New Brunswick, Frank McKenna became premier in 1987 and at first opposed the accord, although he later accepted it. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Meech Lake Accord was ratified in July 1988, but the Figure 16-5 Gary Filmon was the new government under Premier reversed its approval in April from 1988 to 1999. 1990. However, Wells agreed to let the provincial legislature debate the Review Québec’s conditions for signing accord. As the deadline of June 23, 1990, crept closer, and with the two the Constitution on page 463. Why do provinces of Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador still needing to you think Premier Filmon was initially approve it, the Meech Lake Accord was in peril. opposed to the Meech Lake Accord? Opposition to Meech At first, public opinion polls showed strong support for the Meech Lake Accord. As the deadline approached, however, this support decreased for many reasons, including the acceptance of Québec as a distinct society. Former Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau, a strong federalist, was one of the leading opponents of giving Québec distinct society status. He argued that labelling Québec a distinct society would encourage the séparatistes by making Québécois feel less a part of Canada. Other critics, especially women’s rights groups and labour unions, argued that the accord’s distinct society clause would allow Québec to override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and deprive certain groups of their rights. Aboriginal organizations, such as the Assembly of First CHECKFORWARD Nations, pointed out that, like Québec’s francophone society, First You will read more about Nations, Métis, and Inuit cultures were also distinct. Aboriginal leaders Aboriginal peoples’ opposition to the Meech Lake Accord in were angry that they had not been consulted in the process, and protests Chapter 17. against the accord took place across the country. Some people in western Canada opposed the Meech Lake Accord because they felt alienated from and resented the additional powers the accord granted to Québec. They argued that the agreement would make the provinces unequal. CHECKBACK

464 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r The Failure of the Meech Lake Accord In April 1990, as president of the Métis National Council and Manitoba Metis Federation, W. Yvon Dumont spoke in favour of the accord in the Voices Manitoba Legislature. The Métis organizations hoped the negotiations We need to let Canadians know that that would follow the accord’s acceptance would bring about the changes we have been shoved aside. We’re they wanted. However, other Aboriginal groups were not as supportive. saying that Aboriginal issues should On June 12, 1990, the Manitoba government’s last attempt to conduct a be put on the priority list. debate on the accord failed. The unanimous approval of the legislature — Manitoba MLA , was needed to allow further debate on the accord before the June 23 June 12, 1990 deadline. With the support of the Assembly of First Nations, Elijah Harper, the only Aboriginal Member of the Legislative Assembly, voted against allowing the debate. His vote stopped the proceedings, and as a result, Manitoba could not approve the Meech Lake Accord. When this happened, Premier Clyde Wells withdrew his agreement to allow the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature more time to debate the accord. The Meech Lake Accord failed. Shortly after the failure of the accord, Premier Robert Bourassa delivered a speech to the National Assembly of Québec that captured his province’s frustration and that foreshadowed the growth of séparatiste feelings in the province. In closing his speech, Bourassa stated, “ must clearly understand that, no matter what is said or done, Québec is, today and forever, a distinct society, that is free and able to assume the control of its destiny and development.”

E Read the words of Elijah Harper in the Voices feature. What seemed to be his primary reason for opposing the Meech Lake Accord?

Bouchard and the Formation of the Bloc Qu b cois In Québec, many citizens were pleased the Meech Lake Accord had failed because they did not believe it gave Québec enough power. For many people in Québec, the failure of the accord was a signal that the rest of Canada was not willing to make sufficient compromises to keep Québec in the country. Bourassa said he believed that Québec was not understood by the rest of Canada. A group of federal politicians in Québec became so disillusioned at what they saw as English Canada’s rejection of their province that they broke away from their political parties. One of these politicians was , who had been a cabinet minister under Prime Figure 16-6 With Lucien Bouchard as Minister Brian Mulroney. Bouchard became leader of a new federal party its leader, the Bloc Québécois formed in called the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc was committed to the separation of 1991 after the failure of the Meech Lake Québec from Canada. The party argued that as long as Québec séparatistes Accord. The federal Bloc Québécois and paid federal taxes, they were entitled to representation in Ottawa. In the the provincial Parti Québécois share the 1993 federal election, the Bloc Québécois received 49 percent of the vote in same political goal of independence for Québec and obtained the second highest number of seats in the House of Québec. Commons. This meant that a party devoted to the separation of Québec from Canada assumed the status of the Official Opposition.

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 465 Pr o f i l e Elijah Harper

On June 12, 1990, Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Elijah Harper made national news and Canadian history when he voted against allowing the Manitoba Legislative Assembly to debate the Meech Lake Accord. His vote signalled not only the death of the accord, but also the determination of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples to fight for their rights and voice in the Canadian Constitution.

Elijah Harper, an Anishini-Nimowin (Oji-Cree), was Over the years, Harper’s strong advocacy for born on March 3, 1949, at Red Sucker Lake, a reserve Aboriginal peoples’ rights and his humanitarian work in northern Manitoba. He attended residential has earned him many awards, including schools in , Brandon, Birtle, Garden • Honourary Chief for Life, Red Sucker Lake First Hill, and Winnipeg. In 1971 and 1972, he studied at the Nation . • Humanitarian Award Harper’s career in politics began early when, at the age of twenty-nine, he was elected chief of the Red • 1990 Canadian Press Newsmaker of the Year in Sucker Lake Indian Band, now known as Red Sucker Canada Lake First Nation. His career in provincial politics • National Aboriginal Achievement Award, 1996 started in 1981, when Harper became the first status • Order of the Sash (Manitoba Metis Federation) Indian to be elected as an MLA for the Rupertsland • Gold Eagle Award (for Outstanding Citizen from the constituency. He held this seat for eleven years and Indigenous Women’s Collective, Manitoba) served in many positions as part of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, including minister of northern Today Elijah Harper continues to be an activist, affairs. promoting Aboriginal and human rights in Canada and As Prime Minister Brian Mulroney held talks and around the world. meetings about the proposed Meech Lake Accord in the late 1980s, Aboriginal Canadians became Figure 16-7 On May 20, 2008, Elijah Harper holds up the increasingly alarmed at their exclusion from the sacred eagle feather he held for spiritual strength during the process and the absence of Aboriginal peoples’ rights Meech Lake Accord proceedings. Look back to page 3 in this from the negotiations. In opposing the debate over the book to see the 1990 photo of Harper with the feather. Meech Lake Accord, Harper let Canadians know that Aboriginal rights must be included in any constitutional amendment. In 1992, Harper also opposed the , even though it was supported by , the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. Harper resigned as MLA for Rupertsland in 1992, and in 1993, he was elected as a Member of Parliament for the Churchill constituency.

Ex p l o r a t i o n s

1. How was Elijah Harper’s role in the Meech Lake 2. Research one of the awards that Elijah Harper has C&C Accord a turning point in Canadian history? C C received and write a short report on the reasons why he won the award.

466 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r Charlottetown Accord Despite the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, Prime Minister Mulroney Figure 16-8 The final agreements for both Confederation in 1867 and the remained determined to bring Québec into the Constitution, and he Charlottetown Accord in 1992 were tried to learn from Meech’s failure. The Meech Lake Accord came to be reached in Charlottetown, Prince Edward known as the “Québec round” of negotiations. It had focused on meeting Island. Cartoonist Adrian Raeside based Québec’s needs. Part of the reason Meech Lake failed, however, was that his cartoon on this fact. What message it did not address the needs of some other provinces, Aboriginal peoples, do you think Raeside wanted to convey women, and other groups. in this cartoon? In 1991, Mulroney launched a new round of constitutional discussions that became known as the “Canada round” of negotiations. He held five national conferences to talk about constitutional issues. In 1992, the negotiations led to the Charlottetown Accord, which was named after the city where the agreement was reached. The Charlottetown agreement was similar to the Meech Lake Accord in that it recognized Québec as a distinct society and promised greater powers for the provinces. It also, however, recognized Aboriginal peoples’ right to self-government and proposed an elected Senate with an equal number of senators from each province and with seats reserved for Aboriginal peoples. Québec planned to hold a referendum on the Charlottetown Accord. In response, the Canadian government decided that all Canadians would vote on the Charlottetown proposal in a national referendum. All three major political parties supported the Charlottetown Accord, but in the last weeks before the referendum, there was a swell of public Voices opinion against the agreement. Many chiefs in the Assembly of First There were, of course, legitimate Nations were suspicious of the promises in the accord, despite the fact that grounds for opposing change that the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, had explicitly set Québec apart from the helped draft the proposal. Other Canadians believed the accord gave too other provinces. But something less much power to Québec and not enough to their own provinces. rational, and at times ugly, was also On October 26, 1992, the Charlottetown Accord won approval in in play. Even today, the main players only four provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, on both sides of the debate hesitate New Brunswick, and . Across Canada, the vote was 45.7 percent to discuss the degree to which in favour, 54.3 percent opposed. Québec rejected the accord by a margin outright anti-Québec bigotry was of 56.7 percent to 43.3. Once again, Canadians had been unable to agree behind the fierce opposition to the on constitutional change. [distinct society] clause. — John Geddes, Ottawa E Read the Voices feature on this page. What does it tell you about the bureau chief, Maclean’s, 2000 role anti-Québec feeling in other provinces may have played in the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords? Do you think, as Geddes does, that anti-Québec feelings were a major factor, or do you think other factors were more significant? Explain your answer.

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 467 establishing historical significance HS Twenty Years After Meech

June 23, 2010, was the twentieth anniversary of the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. Newspapers across the country ran editorials that reflected on the Meech Lake Accord and Québec’s relationship with the rest of Canada over the past twenty years. Andrew Cohen, a native Montréaler, journalism professor, award-winning journalist, and author of A Deal Undone: The Making and Breaking of the Meech Lake Accord, wrote the article “We Survived the Death of Meech,” which appeared in on June 23, 2010. Here are selected excerpts from his article:

Long before the end of the Meech Lake Accord on Why the popular opposition to these seemingly June 23, 1990, politicians were warning that Canada moderate constitutional reforms? While few Canadians would not survive its death . . .. For three years, that cared about spending power, immigration or allowing was the lament from the Meech Lake architects: So the provinces a say in appointing high court judges and critical was their exercise in nation-building that Canada senators, they were suspicious of recognizing Québec could not long endure without it. as “a distinct society.” More generally, they worried about the devolution of powers [transfer of power from Twenty years later, we know that wasn’t so. Canada is the federal government to the provincial governments]. still here and Québec is still part of it . . .. That Canada endured . . . is one of the lessons of the Meech Lake Today, we can ponder the consequences if Meech Lake Accord, the longest of the constitutional wars that had passed. Perhaps Québec would have lived happily seized Canada from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s. ever after within Canada. No Bloc Québécois, no There were other lessons. Charlottetown agreement . . .. Meech Lake taught us that constitutions could More likely, though, the Parti Québécois would have no longer be made in secret. The accord, a set of used distinct society to claim significant powers for constitutional amendments, was negotiated in private Québec in social policy. For sovereigntists, it was win- by the first ministers in a day-long session on April 30, win either way. Had they succeeded, they would have 1987, on the shores of Meech Lake in Québec. It was moved Québec toward de facto [actual] sovereignty; adopted 33 days later at an all-night session in Ottawa. had they failed, they would have said Meech Lake was At first, it was widely praised; there was hardly a a lie. politician anywhere who opposed it. But the more Meech Lake began with good intentions. It went Canadians learned about Meech Lake, the more they badly wrong, divided English and French, and plunged distrusted it. Canada into psychodrama that drove us to the edge Had they been consulted, as they were in the making of of the abyss in the referendum in Québec in 1995. It the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1980 and 1981, showed us that it is almost impossible to change our they might have claimed ownership. But they resented constitution—and dangerous to try. that Meech Lake was revolution from above; it was But it also showed that the people were right, the constitution-making by stealth and its collapse was a political class was wrong and that our Canada takes a body blow to executive federalism . . .. lot of killing.

HS 1. According to Andrew Cohen, how did people in 1990 2. From Cohen’s perspective, twenty years after judge the significance of the failure of the Meech Lake the failure of the accord, what was its historical Accord? significance?

468 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r Québec Referendum on Sovereignty, 1995 Twenty Years After Meech In response to the failure of the Meech and Charlottetown Accords, Québec citizens elected the Parti Québécois in 1994 and became premier. Known for his support of separation, Parizeau promised Québécois that they would be able to vote in a sovereignty referendum on October 30, 1995. The question that the Québec government proposed for the referendum was

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new Economic and Political Partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995? The bill referred to in the question allowed for one year of negotiations with Canada before sovereignty was declared. The agreement . . . Shaping Canada Today. . . that was mentioned in the question referred to a deal among the Parti voted the 1995 Québécois, the Bloc Québécois, and the Action démocratique du Québec referendum Canadian Newsmaker of (a provincial political party) to support separation. The wording of the the Year. This marked the first time that an event, rather than a person or group, question was hotly debated. Many voters believed there were too many had been chosen for this award. ways to interpret the question. Despite the issues over lack of clarity, the question remained the same. Even though only Québec residents could vote in the referendum, the importance of the event was felt across Canada. Many federalist Canadians found ways to tell Québécois they wanted them to remain a part of Canada. On October 28, more than 100 000 Canadians from many provinces came to Montréal to hold a . On October 30, 1995, 4 757 509 votes were cast in Québec: 50.58 percent opposed separation and 49.42 percent supported it. Although the federalist side was successful, the vote was too close to clearly and finally resolve the sovereignty debate. In the years since the referendum, support for sovereignty in Québec has gone up and down. In May 2010, an opinion poll in Québec showed that 58 percent of Québécois believed that the sovereignty debate was “outmoded,” while 26 percent believed it was “more relevant” than ever. Other opinion polls consistently show that if another referendum were held, roughly 40 percent of Québécois would vote for sovereignty.

Figure 16-9 “Oui” supporters celebrated at the Palais des Congrès de Montréal as the referendum votes started to come in.

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 469 The Declaration, 1997 In 1997, deep divisions existed in Canadian society and politics. The debates over constitutional change and the split vote in the Québec sovereignty referendum made this clear. Although the differences between Québec and the federal government attracted the most attention, there were other serious divisions as well. Other regions, such as the West, and other groups, such as Aboriginal peoples, were increasingly determined to make their voices heard. The next initiative to forge a national consensus came from the provincial premiers. Although Québec’s premier, Lucien Bouchard, refused to attend, in September 1997, nine provincial premiers met in Calgary in an attempt to lay the groundwork for a unity package that they hoped would be supported by the majority of Canadians. The , as the agreement came to be known, declared that • Québec should be recognized as a unique society, and that the Government of Québec has a role in preserving the unique character of the province • all Canadians are equal and all provinces have equal status • Canada’s multicultural diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and citizens from all parts of the world • any future constitutional amendments would apply equally to all provinces Although the Calgary Declaration was endorsed by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, it did little to resolve Canada’s constitutional woes. Aboriginal leaders, for example, were disappointed that the agreement did not fully address their concerns. Bouchard rejected the declaration, stating that it was meaningless to suggest that the Québécois were unique like all other Canadians, and in Québec, the declaration quickly lost credibility. In response to the Calgary Declaration, Bouchard issued a statement to the people of Québec, which read, in part

Two years ago, 49.4% of Quebecers voted in favour of sovereignty. This jolt was not sufficient to earn Québec respect and recognition, much less control over its affairs. Two years ago, we mobilized all of our energies to send our neighbours the broadest appeal for change in our history. WEB CONNECTIONS Sunday, in Calgary, the English-speaking premiers were clear. Canada will not make any of the changes sought by Quebecers . . .. To read the entire speech given by Premier Bouchard in response to the Calgary The premiers have shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if Quebecers Declaration, go to the Shaping Canada web site and follow the links. want to be recognized as the people they are, if they wish to control their destiny, there is only one course of action open to them, i.e. for a majority of them to vote next time for sovereignty . . ..

HP Why did Québec Premier Lucien Bouchard state that the Calgary Declaration showed that Canada would not make any of the changes that Québec wanted?

470 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r Vi e w p o i n t s o n Hi s t o r y The Right to Be a Distinct Society?

The question of whether Québec should be recognized as a distinct society has dominated national unity discussions. This question generated many different reactions. Read the following viewpoints regarding the idea of a distinct society.

Th e Li b e r a l Pa r t y o f Qu é b e c , in its policy statement Grand Chief Ph i l Fo n t a i n e , head of the Assembly of Mastering Our Future, 1985: Manitoba Chiefs, 1989–1997, in the Montréal Gazette, June 18, 1990: It is high time that Québec be given explicit constitutional recognition as a distinct society, with its own language, . . . if Québec is distinct, we are even more distinct. That’s culture, history, institutions and way of life. Without this the recognition we want, and will settle for nothing less . . .. recognition, and the accompanying political rights and Like Québec, we want to be recognized as a distinct society, responsibilities, it will always be difficult to agree on the because recognition means power . . . the ability to make numerous questions involving Québec’s place in Canada. laws that will govern our communities and we want a This recognition should be formally expressed in a preamble justice system that is more compatible with the traditions of the new Constitution. of our people.

Former prime minister Pi e r r e Tr u d e a u in the Br i a n Di c k s o n , chief justice of the Supreme Court Montréal Gazette, February 17, 1996: of Canada, in a speech on Québec as a distinct society, 1996: I have always opposed the notions of special status and distinct society. With the Quiet Revolution, Québec became Let me say directly that I have no difficulty with the an adult and its inhabitants have no need of favours or concept [of distinct society]. In fact, the courts are already privileges to face life’s challenges and to take their rightful interpreting the Charter of Rights and the Constitution in a place within Canada and in the world at large. They should manner that takes into account Québec’s distinctive role in not look for their “identity” and their “distinctness” in the protecting and promoting its francophone character . . .. constitution, but rather in their confidence in themselves [T]herefore entrenching formal recognition of Québec’s and in the full exercise of their rights as citizens equal to all distinctive character in the Constitution would not involve a other citizens of Canada. significant departure from the existing practise in our court.

Ex p l o r a t i o n s

1. Summarize the arguments of those opposed to 2. Many Canadians outside Québec had strong opinions Québec being granted a distinct society status, then HP about Québec’s status as a distinct society. Take the summarize the arguments of those who support historical perspective of a Canadian outside of Québec Québec’s distinct society status. in 1992 and speculate why he or she might have agreed or disagreed with this recognition. You may want to review Chapters 12 to 15 to examine the events and issues that may have affected her or his opinion.

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 471 the Right to Secede In 1998, the Parti Québécois was re-elected in Québec. The federal government decided it had to do more than just react to further moves toward separation by Québec. In 1999, the government went to the Supreme Court of Canada to seek legal guidelines in case Québec declared that it would secede (formally withdraw) from the federation. The government asked, “Under the , can the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Québec effect the succession of Québec from Canada unilaterally [without consultation with Canada]?” The Supreme Court said it could not. It stated that Québec was legally bound to negotiate with Canada on the terms of any separation. The Canadian government also asked the court whether Québec had the right to declare independence unilaterally under international law. Again, the Court said no. The federal government then turned to the Québec government and asked it to respect the court’s ruling. The Québec government chose to see support for Québec independence in the ruling. Québec stated that, should there be a favourable vote for sovereignty, the ruling obliges Canada to negotiate in good faith with Québec.

Clarity Act As the Supreme Court ruling on Québec’s right to secede did not settle all of the separation issues, the Canadian government decided it was time to try to end the uncertainty about Québec separation. In 1999, the Chrétien government began drafting the , which it passed in 2000. The act established the following requirements for any future separation referendums held in any province: • Before a vote, the House of Commons will decide whether the proposed referendum question is clear. Furthermore, any question that goes beyond the basic issue of separation will be considered unclear. • After the vote, the House of Commons will decide whether a clear Figure 16-10 Our Master of Clarity, by majority has been achieved—50 percent plus one may not be accepted Aislin, 1999. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, as enough support for separation. who was often criticized for his lack of • All provinces and Aboriginal peoples will be part of the discussions. clarity, was the subject of many editorial cartoons when he passed the Clarity Act. • A constitutional amendment is required before a province can separate. , the new leader of the Bloc Québécois, fought the Clarity Act. He said it gave the federal government too much power to interfere with Québec. Despite his efforts, Parliament passed the act on June 29, 2000.

Recall . . . R e f l e c t . . . R e s p o n d

1. Create a timeline that includes four or five events in 2. Find a current news story that reflects how HS the history of the constitutional debate from 1989 to C&C Canada’s founding nations—Aboriginal peoples, the present. For each event on the timeline, add a French, and English—continue to influence the note explaining the event’s historical significance. country’s politics today. Explain your choice.

472 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r Establishingestablishing Historicalhistorical significanceSignificance HS A Nation within a United Canada

I think tonight was an historic night. Canadians across the country said “yes” to Québec, “yes” to Québecers, and Québecers said “yes” to Canada.

— Prime Minister , on passing the motion declaring the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada, November 27, 2006

The popularity of the sovereignty movement in Despite the overwhelming support for the motion, Québec has gone up and down since 2000, but the Conservative MP Michael Chong, the minister of movement remains strong among many Québécois. In intergovernmental affairs and minister of sport, November 2006, the Bloc Québécois asked the House announced his resignation from his position so he of Commons to pass a motion recognizing “Québecers could abstain from voting. Chong stated that the motion as a nation.” Many Members of Parliament (MPs) was “. . . nothing else but the recognition of ethnic objected, saying the motion did not include a nationalism, and that is something I cannot support. It reference to Canada. In response, Prime Minister cannot be interpreted as the recognition of a territorial Harper introduced a motion that stated, “That this nationalism, as it does not refer to the geographic entity, House recognize that the Québécois form a nation but to a group of people.” Other MPs stated that the within a united Canada.” motion was divisive, further damaging national unity. In his address to the House of Commons, Harper stated his government’s position on the motion:

Our position is clear—do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no. And the answer will always be no. Although the Bloc Québécois wanted to change the wording to state that the “Québécois are a nation currently within Canada,” they later accepted Harper’s motion. On November 27, 2006, the House of Commons Figure 16-11 When federal politicians were debating whether passed the motion by a vote of 266 to 16, with support Québécois form a nation within Canada, Michael de Adder drew this from the majority of Conservative, Liberal, New cartoon to reflect his views on the recurring issue of Canadian unity. Democrat, and Bloc Québécois MPs. Why might some Canadians have taken this view of the debate? HS

1. Why was the recognition of the Québécois as a nation 2. Review Michael Chong’s statement about the motion. within a united Canada historically significant? Did Do you think his opposition reflected the views of many Parliament’s approval of the motion suggest that Canadians? Do you think the motion had an effect on Canadians might be ready to recognize Québec national unity? Explain your answer. as a distinct society? Explain the reasons for your judgment.

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 473 Na t i o n a l Un i t y a n d Ch a n g i n g Po l i t i c s

“The West Wants In”

Figure 16-12 Reform Party leader Preston In the 1980s many in the western provinces—Manitoba, , Manning is shown with some of the , and —felt a growing sense of alienation from party’s campaign materials, including the rest of Canada. Many western Canadians were tired of being left out a party newspaper that carried the of the federal government’s priorities and believed that Ottawa did not headline “What does the West want?” understand or appreciate their needs. These feelings of What demands might the article have led to the creation of several new political parties. included? The Reform Party In 1987, the creation of the was a result of western alienation. The party’s slogan was “The West wants in.” , an Albertan and the Reform Party’s first leader, called for provincial equality with no special status for Québec. The party came to national attention in 1993 when it campaigned against the Charlottetown Accord in the federal election and won fifty-two seats in the House of Commons. Then, in the 1997 federal election, the party increased its seats to sixty, and Manning became the leader of the opposition. All the members of the Reform Party were from the West, and the party was viewed as a regional party. Knowing it would have to increase the Reform Party’s size and scope of members beyond the West if it wanted to get enough votes to form the government, Manning started a movement called the United Alternative. Its goal was to “” and create a new with a national political base.

A New Conservative Party In an attempt to persuade Progressive Conservative Party members to join them, members of the Reform Party voted in 2000 to dissolve their party and create the . In 2002, Stephen Harper, a Calgary politician, was elected leader of the Alliance party. In 2003, the Canadian Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservative Party. Together, they formed the Conservative Party of Canada, and Harper was elected as the party’s leader. In the 2006 federal election, the Conservative Party formed a minority government.

Figure 16-13 In 1992, Montréal cartoonist Aislin created this cartoon, which used negative stereotypes to show the growing gap in understanding between Québécois and western Canadians. How might this gap in understanding affect national unity debates in Canada?

474 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r Federal–Provincial Division of Powers As the federal government struggled with trying to keep Canada united, it also faced several challenges from provincial governments. Since Confederation, the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments has been at the root of many conflicts. As you learned in Chapter 14, one of the major concerns between the federal and provincial governments was over the control of resources. While provinces continue to retain significant control over their resources, they must also increasingly work with federal environmental policies, such as those regarding reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability. Other issues in which the division of power has to led to debate include equalization payments and health care.

Equalization Payments When Canada was formed in 1867, the provinces were given responsibility for social programs. Inequalities occurred because rich provinces could provide more services to their residents than less-prosperous provinces. In 1957, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent persuaded prosperous provinces to share some of their wealth. St. Laurent’s goal was to ensure that Voices all Canadians would have access to similar public services, no matter what I haven’t chatted with any premier province they lived in. To achieve this, wealthier provinces, such as Ontario that thinks equalization is working and British Columbia, gave some of the money they collected in taxes to the well. That’s a part of the Canadian federal government. The government then redistributed this money to the condition. Developing consensus less-prosperous provinces in a transfer known as equalization payments. on how to fix it—that’s nearly The federal government calculates the amount of equalization as complicated as amending the Constitution. payments in consultation with the provinces. Many provincial leaders question the program. The issues include fairness, level of services, natural — Ontario Premier resource revenues, and how equalization payments are calculated. Dalton McGuinty, 2010 C C Due to the economic downturn in 2008, Ontario became a recipient of equalization payments for the first time since the program began. Do you think a change such as this would have any effect on support for Let’s Discuss national unity among the provinces? Why or why not? How might equalization payments Figure 16-14 Federal Equalization Payments to Provinces (millions of dollars) create friction between provinces and What factors do you think contribute to the amount of equalization payments going to affect national unity? each province?

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 NF PEI NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC NF PEI NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC NF PEI NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC NF PEI NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC NF PEI NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC Source: Department of Finance Canada

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 475 Health-Care Issues The health-care system is another point of contention between the federal and provincial governments. Health care in Canada has undergone many changes since medicare was introduced in 1966. Costs of public health care have risen dramatically, and the federal and provincial governments have frequently disagreed over how health care is funded and how health-care funds are spent. By 2001, funding for universal health care had fallen behind the rising costs. Some hospitals closed while others offered limited services. Some provinces moved toward a two-tier health system and allowed for-profit, private-sector businesses to offer some health-care procedures. This meant that those who could afford to pay for procedures with their own money could obtain some health services before other people. Public opinion polls showed that Canadians wanted to keep universal health care, but they wanted improvements. In response, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appointed former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow to head the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. In November 2002, Romanow released a 356-page report, which became known as the Romanow Report. Among its forty-seven recommendations, the report stated that • provinces and territories should work together with the federal Figure 16-15 Roy Romanow holds a copy government to maintain universal health care for all Canadians of his report regarding the future of • the federal government should increase contributions to medicare health care in Canada. Why do you think it was called Building on Values ? • governments should be more accountable about how funds are being spent on health care • a national drug plan should be developed to help offset the rising costs of prescription medications • there should be increased funding and support for Aboriginal health care In response to the report, the federal government acted on some of the recommendations, such as injecting more funds into health care, but the tension between federal and provincial governments over the spending and allocation of funds has continued. Critics of the report argue that many of the recommendations, such as a national drug plan, are too expensive. C C What might be the consequences of provinces assuming more control over health care?

476 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r CHECKFORWARD

Senate Reform Since 1982, successive Canadian governments have attempted Senate reform. Many Canadians have questioned the effectiveness of the Senate, which was created as a place of “sober second thought” on the decisions CHECKBACK of the House of Commons. Many Canadians have argued that senators should be elected rather than appointed, should more closely reflect You learned about the roles of the cultural diversity of Canada, and should represent the population the Senate in Chapter 6. distribution across various provinces. Another major issue has been the fact that senators are appointed by the Governor General, after being recommended by the prime minister, and are not elected by Canadian citizens. Some provincial premiers lobbied for Senate reform to allow for provincial representation through elected senators. If a province could Figure 16-16 In 2010, Prime Minister elect its own senator, then that senator could lobby for the interests of his Harper’s minority Conservative or her province. In the 1990s, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney attempted government tried—unsuccessfully—to to include Senate reforms in both the Meech Lake and the Charlottetown pass motions in the House of Commons Accords, but those reforms were lost when the accords approving fixed, eight-year terms failed. Preston Manning and the Reform Party for senators. How does this cartoon vocalized the idea of provincial representation when represent this proposal for reform? they pushed for a “Triple-E” Senate: elected, equal, and effective. The Triple-E proposal suggested that representation for the Senate be more proportional to the population of the provinces. When Stephen Harper came to power as head of the Conservative Party in 2006, he promised to reform the Senate. In May 2006, he introduced legislation that would limit new senators to eight- year terms. This was a significant change from existing legislation that required only that senators retire when they reached the age of seventy-five. Similar to what Preston Manning wanted in a Triple-E Senate, Harper also planned to introduce reform that would allow Senate members to be elected by their provinces. However, as of 2010, Senate members were still appointed by the Governor General upon recommendations by the prime minister. One reason that significant Senate reform has not taken place is that it requires a constitutional amendment. For an amendment to take place, seven provinces with at least 50 percent of the Canadian population must agree to the change. As you have learned through the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, constitutional reform is not an easy task. C C How would Senate reform affect the provinces and territories?

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 477 Economic Recession and the Financial Crisis of 2008 In September 2008, the economy of the United States entered a severe recession. Many banks and investment companies declared bankruptcy, the value of stocks plunged, and economists warned that the United States was moving into an economic depression. As you learned in Chapter 11, during economic depressions, business activity and prices drop, unemployment rises, and people do not have as much money to spend. Canada’s economy is closely linked to that of the United States. The United States is Canada’s biggest trading partner, with more than 80 percent of Canadian exports shipped south of the border. When American consumers stopped buying Canadian products and American businesses reduced the amount of Canadian resources they bought, Canadian exports suffered. This drop in demand for Canadian products and resources led to significant job losses in Canada. Canadian stock markets are also closely linked to American and world markets. When the price of shares plunged on international stock markets, share prices on Canadian markets also fell. The value of Canadians’ investments dropped, significantly reducing many people’s savings. Many Canadians, especially those in the auto and oil industries, lost Figure 16-17 During the financial their jobs. Unemployed workers do not buy as much, and this affects sales crisis of 2008 and 2009, many auto in other businesses. As their sales drop, these businesses may lay off more manufacturers closed plants. Manitoba workers, and the cycle continues. was not hit as hard during the recession Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia were hit hardest during as provinces such as Ontario and Alberta, the economic recession, while Manitoba was less seriously affected. In because its economy does not rely 2009, Manitoba’s economy grew slightly. This growth was largely due heavily on one industry or sector. to its diversified economy and provincially-funded construction and improvement projects.

478 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r The Shifting Political Spectrum Following Pierre Trudeau’s exit from politics, the Liberal Party’s lengthy mandate came to an end. Over the next several decades, federal power shifted between Conservative and Liberal governments, new political parties altered the political balance, and some governments had the challenge of governing as minority governments.

Mulroney’s Conservative Government When Brian Mulroney came to power as prime minister in 1984, he brought a different style to Canadian politics and a more business- friendly attitude to government than that of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. He attempted to reduce the huge national debt that Canada had amassed since the 1960s. He discontinued old age pensions and family allowances for citizens who could afford to live without government aid. The Mulroney government also triggered debates across Canada when it negotiated a free-trade deal with the United States and later with Mexico, introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and made efforts to bring Québec into the Constitution through the Meech Lake and CHECKFORWARD Charlottetown Accords. You will learn about Canada’s Despite winning majority governments in 1984 and 1988, when free-trade agreements with the United States and Mexico in Mulroney left office in 1993, his popularity among Canadians was the Chapter 18. lowest of any prime minister in Canadian history. In the election that followed his resignation, his Progressive Conservative Party was reduced to only two seats in Parliament, which resulted in the loss of its status as an official party in the House of Commons. Figure 16-18C HECKJean BChrétienACK (left) and (right) were the prime Chr tien’s Liberal Governments ministers of Canada during the unbroken Jean Chrétien, whose political career stretched back to series of Liberal governments from the 1960s, became prime minister in 1993 as Canada 1993 to 2006. Chrétien served as prime headed into an economic boom. Prime Minister minister from 1993 to 2003, while Martin Chrétien’s government made drastic cuts to served from 2003 to 2006. government spending and was able to bring Canada’s enormous public debt under control. Chrétien’s government and the Liberal Party began to lose popularity during the Sponsorship Scandal, which came to light in 2003 and 2004. After the 1995 Québec sovereignty referendum, Chrétien set up a special $250 million fund to fight separatism by sponsoring and advertising the idea of a united Canada in Québec. When stories of improper use of this money were reported in November 2003, Chrétien resigned, and Paul Martin took over as prime minister. In 2004, Canada’s auditor general, who examines the federal government’s accounts, found that $100 million in sponsorship funds had been given illegally to advertising companies with ties to the Liberal Party.

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 479 Minority Governments In the 2004 election, the Liberals lost seats, but they still managed to Figure 16-19 In 2008, Stephen Harper’s form a minority government. Minority governments have less power than Conservative Party formed Canada’s third majority governments and must negotiate with other parties for support to minority government in four years. gain enough votes to pass laws and stay in power. If the opposition parties vote together, they can defeat a minority government and force an election. In 2005, opposition parties banded together and forced the Liberal Party to hold another federal election in January 2006. The opposition believed that the Liberals were losing support among Canadians and that Prime Minister Paul Martin’s government could be voted out. In this election, the Conservatives won enough seats to form a minority government, and Stephen Harper became prime minister. C C The Conservative Party formed a minority government in 2006 and 2008. What do you think are some of the factors that led to the election of these minority governments? What were some of the consequences?

Formation of the Green Party The political stage in Canada was also changed by the arrival of a new federal political party—the . The party was founded in 1983 and had grown to roughly 11 000 members by 2008. The Green Party is not affiliated with other green parties around the world, but it is similarly aligned in that it supports an economy that is environmentally responsible and a government that is accountable to its citizens. In the 2004 federal election, the Green Party made history when it became only the fourth federal political party ever to run candidates in all 308 ridings across Canada. Although the Green Party received just Figure 16-20 Despite having candidates in all 308 Canadian ridings, it was not under one million votes in until the election of 2008, after much the election, it failed to win arguing among federal party leaders, any seats in the House of that the Green Party was invited to Commons. participate in pre-election debates. In this photograph, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May responds to a question during a federal election debate in Ottawa on October 2, 2008.

Recall . . . R e f l e c t . . . R e s p o n d

1. Review pages 474 to 480 and choose two political 2. What challenges have caused the most tension in HS changes that had the most significance for national C C federal–provincial relations in Canada? Why? unity. Provide arguments for why they were most significant.

480 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r consideringConsidering the ethical dimensions of history ED Proroguing Parliament

In a federal election that marked the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history (59.1 percent), the Conservative Party formed yet another minority government in 2008. The opposition became convinced that if they forced another election, they could overturn the Harper government.

The opposition announced that they would be that the decision to prorogue Parliament was to give declaring a non-confidence vote against the his party time to consult with Canadians about the Conservative government on December 8, 2008. If economy, many opposition leaders believed it was done a majority of Members of Parliament vote that they to avoid accountability for the treatment of Afghanistan do not have confidence in the current government, detainees by Canadian forces during the United then one of two courses of action must be taken: the Nations mission in Afghanistan. You will learn about the leader of the party with the next highest number of Canadian forces in Afghanistan in Chapter 18. seats must try to form a government, or the present Public opinion polls after the second prorogation government must dissolve Parliament and call for of Parliament showed that 53 percent of those a general election. The opposition hoped their non- polled disagreed with Harper’s request to prorogue confidence vote would force a new election. Parliament. To avoid the non-confidence vote, Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked Governor General Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament, as the official order must Figure 16-21 On January 23, 2010, protestors in rallied come from the Governor General. The prorogation of against the federal government’s prorogation of Parliament. Parliament means that the legislature is discontinued for a period of time, but not dissolved completely. Jean agreed and called for the prorogation on December 4, 2008. By doing this, Harper avoided the non-confidence vote, but raised considerable debate among politicians and citizens who viewed the move as anti-democratic. In 2010, Harper once again asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament for several weeks. The prorogation caused protests across Canada and from opposition party members. A group called “Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament” attracted over 200 000 members. Over 200 constitutional lawyers and political scientists signed a petition objecting to Harper’s use of prorogation “for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him to evade democratic accountability.” While Harper stated

ED

1. Prime Minister Harper’s prorogation was legal, yet 2. Do you think Prime Minister Harper’s proroguing of many people believe it was unethical. Explain why. Parliament was acceptable or not acceptable? Explain your answer.

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 481 Ch a pt e r 16 Qu e s t i o n s a n d Ac t i v i t i e s

1. Copy the following graphic organizer into your notes. As a result of this situation, Gunter concluded that separating would be harder for Québec than C C As you review Chapter 16, complete the organizer to answer the Essential Question, How has the question for western Canada. “[Separation] would more of national unity influenced federalism, constitutional profoundly . . . do more damage to [Québec’s] economy, debate, and political change? run more contrary to its history and culture. Western separation wouldn’t be inconsequential, but it wouldn’t be nearly as devastating on the region, either.” National Unity a) Name some of the historical, political, and geographic evidence that could support Gunter’s argument that Québec is “more entwined in Canada than the West is.” b) Do you agree with Gunter’s conclusion that the Federalism Constitutional Political Change Debate consequences of separation would be more negative for Québec than for the West? Explain your response.

5. During his time as prime minister, in an effort to E reduce Canada’s large debt, Brian Mulroney ended the universality of some social programs and introduced 2. If you had been a Québécois in 1992, how might you the GST (Goods and Services Tax). He also twice tried HP have interpreted the defeat of the Meech Lake and to have Québec sign the Constitution, creating years Charlottetown Accords? Explain your answer. of constitutional debates. By the end of his time in 3. Given the failure of both the Meech Lake Accord and office, he was one of the least-popular prime ministers in Canadian history, and in the election that followed, C&CHS the Charlottetown Accord, do you believe it is possible to create constitutional reforms that will be supported the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced to by all regions in Canada? To support your answer, only two seats. Examine Figure 16-22. What does this explain what has changed—or stayed the same—in cartoon say about Mulroney’s legacy? Did Mulroney Canada since the accords. deserve the dislike of Canadians, or should he be praised for tackling difficult issues? Support your 4. In the April 2001 issue of Policy Options, columnist answer with evidence from Shaping Canada, or you E Lorne Gunter pointed out some differences between may wish to conduct additional research using other Québec and western Canada. Though Québec seems resources. C&C to really want to leave Canada, Gunter wrote, the West really does not. Figure 16-22 Mulroney Takes His Leave, by Éric Godin, 1993. Gunter also wrote that Québec is actually “more entwined in Canada than the West is. Québec is a more central part of the country—always has been—with more influence on national policies and institutions. It’s more dependent on federal cash, and would be more hurt by a split.”

482 Cl u s t e r 5 • Defining Contemporary Canada (1982 to present) • m h r 6. Examine the political cartoon in Figure 16-23. What 7. As you read on page 481, Prime Minister Stephen HS comment did this cartoon make about the inclusion E Harper’s request to prorogue Parliament in 2010 met of the Green Party and its leader, Elizabeth May, in with much protest from politicians and citizens. What the 2008 televised election debates? Do you believe view does Figure 16-24 reflect of Harper’s decision to that the Green Party of Canada, which focuses on prorogue Parliament? How does the cartoon represent the importance of the environment and other green Harper? Give evidence to support or refute this strategies, will have a growing influence among representation of him. Canadian voters? Why or why not?

Figure 16-24 Proroguative, by Tim Dolighan, January 14, 2010.

Figure 16-23 Cartoonist Malcolm Mayes created this political cartoon for the Journal on September 8, 2008. YoYo u u r r ChallengeChallenge

Steps to Your Challenge Review Chapter 16 and choose one individual who you believe has helped shape Canada today. Alternatively, you may want to consider choosing an individual from Manitoba who has helped shape Manitoba or Canada today. If he or she lives near you, you may wish to request an interview with the individual for your research. Be sure to review interviewing skills and questions with your teacher if you conduct an interview. As you conduct your research or interview, consider the following questions: What conditions helped this person be effective? What conditions worked against her or him? Who was opposed? As you conduct your research, find quotes or anecdotes that reflect his or her personality or cause. Once you have found a few quotes or anecdotes, incorporate them into your profile.

m h r • National Unity • Ch a p t e r 16 483

Steps to Your Challenge