Chapter 16 - McGraw-Hill Ryerson

C h a p t e r Si x t e e n 

National Unity 

Figure 16-1 Québec cartoonist Terry 

Mosher, also known as Aislin, drew this 

Figure 7-1 cartoon In 1970, in 1990 Manitoba show celebrated his opinion its 100th anniversary 

of entering of the into way Confederation. constitutional As debates part of had that celebration, in 

1971 a statue affected (below) Canadian of Métis unity. leader Louis Riel was unveiled 

on the grounds of the Manitoba Legislature in Winnipeg. 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 Canada, thousands 

of Canadians from across the country 

descended on Montréal to tell Québec that 

they wanted the province 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 essential Essential question, Question, you will 

• examine the issues, attempts events, to have and Québec people sign that the shaped Canadian the history 

of Constitution the Métis in through Western the Canada Meech from Lake 1869–1885 Accord and including the 

- Charlottetown the sale of Rupert’s AccordLand 

• - investigate the Red River the debate Resistance over Québec’s place in the Canadian 

- 

federation 

the role and legacy of Louis Riel 

• 

- 

explore 

the Manitoba 

the formation 

Act, 1870 

of new federal political parties and their 

regional interests 

- the dispersal of the Métis 

• discover challenges in federal–provincial relations 

- the Northwest Resistance 

• examine the political, social, and economic lives of the Métis 

Getting Started 

before and after Confederation. 

When the British North America Act was patriated in 1982, the 

Government of Québec refused to give its assent—approval for 

Getting 

the act. Québec’s 

Started 

refusal kept alive the question of its place in 

Study Confederation. the two statues Should of Québec Métis leader be given Louis status Riel as on a page distinct 100. society How 

are This these question two statues opened similar the door How for are other they regions different to also The question controversy 

whether about the the statues Canadian is important government part understood of understanding or appreciated history. their It is 

about distinctiveness. understanding Discontent the past became to better so strong understand in the the West present. that some 

began To to understand talk about Riel, separation you must from Canada. National unity became 

look a 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 page 

do 

460. What 

you 

does 

see 

this 

in these 

cartoon 

statues 

say about the toll that 

• Was national he a unity victim debates of colonialism had on Canada 

• Did How he, might like ordinary so many historical Canadians be 

leaders, affected take by debates charge about and help national to unity 

• shape Examine the Figure future 16-2. of the What West does this rally 

• Was say about he a martyr Canadians’ for all desire for national 

Canadians unity Do you think the same would 

• Was happen he the if the founder West wanted and protector to separate from 

of Canada a sovereign Why Métis or why state not 

• Was he, as many during his time 

believed, a traitor to Canada 

• Was he all of these None of 

these Or is there truth, in part, 

to all of them 

Ke y Te r m s 

assimilated Meech Lake Accord 

Marginalization 

Charlottetown 

Mé Accord tis National 

Calgary Committee Declaration 

Michif Clarity Act 

reconciliation 

Romanow Report 

river lots 

scrip 

square-mile lots 

surveyors 

Enduring Understandings 

Enduring Understandings 

By the end of this chapter, you will gain a greater 

understanding that: 

• Nouvelle-France, Acadie, Québec, and 

• The relationship francophone between communities Aboriginal and across non-Aboriginal 

Canada 

peoples may have be broadly played a defined role shaping as a transition Canadian from 

pre-contact history through and the identity. stages of co-existence, 

colonialism, and cultural and political resurgence 

• As a result of Québec’s unique identity and 

• Since the beginnings history, its of place colonization, in the Canadian First Nations, confederation Inuit, 

and Métis peoples continues have to be struggled the subject to retain of debate. and later, to 

regain their cultural, political and economic rights 

• French–English relations play an ongoing 

• Nouvelle-France, role in the Acadie, debate Québec, about and majority–minority 

francophone 

communities responsibilities across Canada and have rights played of citizens a role in in Canada. 

shaping Canadian history and identity 

• The role of government and the division of 

• The history powers of governance and responsibilities in Canada is in characterized Canada’s federal by 

a transition system from indigenous are subjects self-government of ongoing negotiation. through 

French and British colonial rule to a self-governing 

confederation of provinces and territories 

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

461

HS 

E 

C&C 

C C 

HP 

ED 

Thinking Historically 

Establishing historical significance 

Using primary-source evidence 

Identifying continuity and change 

CHECKFORWARD 

Analyzing cause and consequence 

Taking a historical perspective 

Considering the ethical dimensions 

of history 

CHECKBACK 

You learned about the growth 

of Québec nationalism and the 

FLQ in Chapter 14. 

Th e Pl a c e o f Qu e b e c in Ca n a d a 

‘ 

The Rise of Québec Nationalism to 1980 

The Quiet Revolution marked the beginning of another rise in Québec 

nationalism. Growing pride in Québécois culture inspired a new sense 

of nationalism in Québec. Many Québécois believed that their culture 

and identity would be better protected if their province separated from 

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 

1980, the first sovereignty-association referendum was held in Québec. 

Although sovereignty-association was defeated, the referendum showed that 

a large number of Québécois wanted to pursue the idea of independence. 

Recognition as a Distinct Society 

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 Supreme Court of Canada 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 patriation 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 John Turner, 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, Brian 

Mulroney, 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. 


Meech Lake Accord 

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 

Pierre Trudeau 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 premier, Robert Bourassa, 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 

Initial Agreement at Meech Lake 

Mulroney launched discussions to resolve the Constitution issue, and 

in April 1987, a first ministers’ conference brought Mulroney and the 

provincial premiers together at Meech Lake, Québec. Mulroney’s goal was 

to persuade the premiers to accept that Québec’s language and culture 

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 Ottawa. It appeared as if 

constitutional harmony was finally achieved. 

Figure 16-4 Robert Bourassa celebrates 

a victory for the Liberal Party of 

Québec in the 1989 provincial election. 

Bourassa was premier of the province 

from 1970 to 1976 and then again from 

1985 to 1994. 


463

Figure 16-5 Gary Filmon was the 

premier of Manitoba from 1988 to 1999. 

Review Québec’s conditions for signing 

the Constitution on page 463. Why do 

you think Premier Filmon was initially 

opposed to the Meech Lake Accord 

CHECKFORWARD 

You will read more about 

Aboriginal peoples’ opposition 

to the Meech Lake Accord in 

Chapter 17. 

CHECKBACK 

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, New Brunswick, 

and Newfoundland and Labrador had recently elected new provincial 

governments. The premiers of these provinces had reservations about the 

Meech Lake Accord. Under the leadership of Premier Howard Pawley, 

the Manitoba government had supported the accord in 1987. When Gary 

Filmon 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 

new government under Premier Clyde Wells reversed its approval in April 

1990. However, Wells agreed to let the provincial legislature debate the 

accord. As the deadline of June 23, 1990, crept closer, and with the two 

provinces of Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador still needing to 

approve it, the Meech Lake Accord was in peril. 

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 

Nations, pointed out that, like Québec’s francophone society, First 

Nations, Métis, and Inuit cultures were also distinct. Aboriginal leaders 

were angry that they had not been consulted in the process, and protests 

against the accord took place across the country. 

Some people in western Canada opposed the Meech Lake Accord 

because they felt alienated from central Canada and resented the 

additional powers the accord granted to Québec. They argued that the 

agreement would make the provinces unequal. 


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 

Manitoba Legislature. The Métis organizations hoped the negotiations 

that would follow the accord’s acceptance would bring about the changes 

they wanted. However, other Aboriginal groups were not as supportive. 

On June 12, 1990, the Manitoba government’s last attempt to conduct a 

debate on the accord failed. The unanimous approval of the legislature 

was needed to allow further debate on the accord before the June 23 

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, “English 

Canada 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 Lucien 

Bouchard, who had been a cabinet minister under Prime 

Minister Brian Mulroney. Bouchard became leader of a new federal party 

called the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc was committed to the separation of 

Québec from Canada. The party argued that as long as Québec séparatistes 

paid federal taxes, they were entitled to representation in Ottawa. In the 

1993 federal election, the Bloc Québécois received 49 percent of the vote in 

Québec and obtained the second highest number of seats in the House of 

Commons. This meant that a party devoted to the separation of Québec 

from Canada assumed the status of the Official Opposition. 

Voices 

We need to let Canadians know that 

we have been shoved aside. We’re 

saying that Aboriginal issues should 

be put on the priority list. 

— Manitoba MLA Elijah Harper, 

June 12, 1990 

Figure 16-6 With Lucien Bouchard as 

its leader, the Bloc Québécois formed in 

1991 after the failure of the Meech Lake 

Accord. The federal Bloc Québécois and 

the provincial Parti Québécois share the 

same political goal of independence for 

Québec. 


465

P r 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 

born on March 3, 1949, at Red Sucker Lake, a reserve 

in northern Manitoba. He attended residential 

schools in Norway House, Brandon, Birtle, Garden 

Hill, and Winnipeg. In 1971 and 1972, he studied at the 

University of Manitoba. 

Harper’s career in politics began early when, at the 

age of twenty-nine, he was elected chief of the Red 

Sucker Lake Indian Band, now known as Red Sucker 

Lake First Nation. His career in provincial politics 

started in 1981, when Harper became the first status 

Indian to be elected as an MLA for the Rupertsland 

constituency. He held this seat for eleven years and 

served in many positions as part of the Manitoba 

Legislative Assembly, including minister of northern 

affairs. 

As Prime Minister Brian Mulroney held talks and 

meetings about the proposed Meech Lake Accord 

in the late 1980s, Aboriginal Canadians became 

increasingly alarmed at their exclusion from the 

process and the absence of Aboriginal peoples’ rights 

from the negotiations. In opposing the debate over the 

Meech Lake Accord, Harper let Canadians know that 

Aboriginal rights must be included in any constitutional 

amendment. 

In 1992, Harper also opposed the Charlottetown 

Accord, even though it was supported by Ovide 

Mercredi, 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. 

Over the years, Harper’s strong advocacy for 

Aboriginal peoples’ rights and his humanitarian work 

has earned him many awards, including 

• Honourary Chief for Life, Red Sucker Lake First 

Nation 

• Stanley Knowles Humanitarian Award 

• 1990 Canadian Press Newsmaker of the Year in 

Canada 

• National Aboriginal Achievement Award, 1996 

• Order of the Sash (Manitoba Metis Federation) 

• Gold Eagle Award (for Outstanding Citizen from the 

Indigenous Women’s Collective, Manitoba) 

Today Elijah Harper continues to be an activist, 

promoting Aboriginal and human rights in Canada and 

around the world. 

Figure 16-7 On May 20, 2008, Elijah Harper holds up the 

sacred eagle feather he held for spiritual strength during the 

Meech Lake Accord proceedings. Look back to page 3 in this 

book to see the 1990 photo of Harper with the feather. 

Ex p l o r a t i o n s 

1. How was Elijah Harper’s role in the Meech Lake 

C&C Accord a turning point in Canadian history 

2. Research one of the awards that Elijah Harper has 

received and write a short report on the reasons why 

he won the award. 

C C 


Charlottetown Accord 

Despite the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, Prime Minister Mulroney 

remained determined to bring Québec into the Constitution, and he 

tried to learn from Meech’s failure. The Meech Lake Accord came to be 

known as the “Québec round” of negotiations. It had focused on meeting 

Québec’s needs. Part of the reason Meech Lake failed, however, was that 

it did not address the needs of some other provinces, Aboriginal peoples, 

women, and other groups. 

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 Prince Edward Island 

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 

opinion against the agreement. Many chiefs in the Assembly of First 

Nations were suspicious of the promises in the accord, despite the fact that 

the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, had 

helped draft the proposal. Other Canadians believed the accord gave too 

much power to Québec and not enough to their own provinces. 

On October 26, 1992, the Charlottetown Accord won approval in 

only four provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, 

New Brunswick, and Ontario. Across Canada, the vote was 45.7 percent 

in favour, 54.3 percent opposed. Québec rejected the accord by a margin 

of 56.7 percent to 43.3. Once again, Canadians had been unable to agree 

on constitutional change. 

E Read the Voices feature on this page. What does it tell you about the 

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. 

Figure 16-8 The final agreements for 

both Confederation in 1867 and the 

Charlottetown Accord in 1992 were 

reached in Charlottetown, Prince Edward 

Island. Cartoonist Adrian Raeside based 

his cartoon on this fact. What message 

do you think Raeside wanted to convey 

in this cartoon 

Voices 

There were, of course, legitimate 

grounds for opposing change that 

explicitly set Québec apart from the 

other provinces. But something less 

rational, and at times ugly, was also 

in play. Even today, the main players 

on both sides of the debate hesitate 

to discuss the degree to which 

outright anti-Québec bigotry was 

behind the fierce opposition to the 

[distinct society] clause. 

— John Geddes, Ottawa 

bureau chief, Maclean’s, 2000 


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 the Globe and Mail on June 23, 2010. Here are 

selected excerpts from his article: 

Long before the end of the Meech Lake Accord on 

June 23, 1990, politicians were warning that Canada 

would not survive its death . . .. For three years, that 

was the lament from the Meech Lake architects: So 

critical was their exercise in nation-building that Canada 

could not long endure without it. 

Twenty years later, we know that wasn’t so. Canada is 

still here and Québec is still part of it . . .. That Canada 

endured . . . is one of the lessons of the Meech Lake 

Accord, the longest of the constitutional wars that 

seized Canada from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s. 

There were other lessons. 

Meech Lake taught us that constitutions could 

no longer be made in secret. The accord, a set of 

constitutional amendments, was negotiated in private 

by the first ministers in a day-long session on April 30, 

1987, on the shores of Meech Lake in Québec. It was 

adopted 33 days later at an all-night session in Ottawa. 

At first, it was widely praised; there was hardly a 

politician anywhere who opposed it. But the more 

Canadians learned about Meech Lake, the more they 

distrusted it. 

Had they been consulted, as they were in the making of 

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1980 and 1981, 

they might have claimed ownership. But they resented 

that Meech Lake was revolution from above; it was 

constitution-making by stealth and its collapse was a 

body blow to executive federalism . . .. 

Why the popular opposition to these seemingly 

moderate constitutional reforms While few Canadians 

cared about spending power, immigration or allowing 

the provinces a say in appointing high court judges and 

senators, they were suspicious of recognizing Québec 

as “a distinct society.” More generally, they worried 

about the devolution of powers [transfer of power from 

the federal government to the provincial governments]. 

Today, we can ponder the consequences if Meech Lake 

had passed. Perhaps Québec would have lived happily 

ever after within Canada. No Bloc Québécois, no 

Charlottetown agreement . . .. 

More likely, though, the Parti Québécois would have 

used distinct society to claim significant powers for 

Québec in social policy. For sovereigntists, it was winwin 

either way. Had they succeeded, they would have 

moved Québec toward de facto [actual] sovereignty; 

had they failed, they would have said Meech Lake was 

a lie. 

Meech Lake began with good intentions. It went 

badly wrong, divided English and French, and plunged 

Canada into psychodrama that drove us to the edge 

of the abyss in the referendum in Québec in 1995. It 

showed us that it is almost impossible to change our 

constitution—and dangerous to try. 

But it also showed that the people were right, the 

political class was wrong and that our Canada takes a 

lot of killing. 

HS 

1. According to Andrew Cohen, how did people in 1990 

judge the significance of the failure of the Meech Lake 

Accord 

2. From Cohen’s perspective, twenty years after 

the failure of the accord, what was its historical 

significance 


Québec Referendum on Sovereignty, 1995 

In response to the failure of the Meech and Charlottetown Accords, 

Québec citizens elected the Parti Québécois in 1994 and Jacques Parizeau 

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 

that was mentioned in the question referred to a deal among the Parti 

Québécois, the Bloc Québécois, and the Action démocratique du Québec 

(a provincial political party) to support separation. The wording of the 

question was hotly debated. Many voters believed there were too many 

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 unity rally. 

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. 

. . . Shaping Canada Today. . . 

The Canadian Press voted the 1995 

referendum Canadian Newsmaker of 

the Year. This marked the first time that 

an event, rather than a person or group, 

had been chosen for this award. 

Figure 16-9 “Oui” supporters celebrated at the 

Palais des Congrès de Montréal as the referendum 

votes started to come in. 


469

The Calgary 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 Calgary 

Declaration, 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 

WEB CONNECTIONS 

To read the entire speech given by Premier 

Bouchard in response to the Calgary 

Declaration, go to the Shaping Canada 

web site and follow the links. 

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. 

Sunday, in Calgary, the English-speaking premiers were clear. Canada will not 

make any of the changes sought by Quebecers . . .. 

The premiers have shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if Quebecers 

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 


V i 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 

Mastering Our Future, 1985: 

It is high time that Québec be given explicit constitutional 

recognition as a distinct society, with its own language, 

culture, history, institutions and way of life. Without this 

recognition, and the accompanying political rights and 

responsibilities, it will always be difficult to agree on the 

numerous questions involving Québec’s place in Canada. 

This recognition should be formally expressed in a preamble 

of the new Constitution. 

Grand Chief Ph i l Fo n t a i n e , head of the Assembly of 

Manitoba Chiefs, 1989–1997, in the Montréal Gazette, 

June 18, 1990: 

. . . if Québec is distinct, we are even more distinct. That’s 

the recognition we want, and will settle for nothing less . . .. 

Like Québec, we want to be recognized as a distinct society, 

because recognition means power . . . the ability to make 

laws that will govern our communities and we want a 

justice system that is more compatible with the traditions 

of our people. 

Former prime minister Pi e r r e Tr u d e a u in the 

Montréal Gazette, February 17, 1996: 

I have always opposed the notions of special status and 

distinct society. With the Quiet Revolution, Québec became 

an adult and its inhabitants have no need of favours or 

privileges to face life’s challenges and to take their rightful 

place within Canada and in the world at large. They should 

not look for their “identity” and their “distinctness” in the 

constitution, but rather in their confidence in themselves 

and in the full exercise of their rights as citizens equal to all 

other citizens of Canada. 

Br i a n Di c k s o n, chief justice of the Supreme Court 

of Canada, in a speech on Québec as a distinct 

society, 1996: 

Let me say directly that I have no difficulty with the 

concept [of distinct society]. In fact, the courts are already 

interpreting the Charter of Rights and the Constitution in a 

manner that takes into account Québec’s distinctive role in 

protecting and promoting its francophone character . . .. 

[T]herefore entrenching formal recognition of Québec’s 

distinctive character in the Constitution would not involve a 

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 

Québec being granted a distinct society status, then 

summarize the arguments of those who support 

Québec’s distinct society status. 

2. Many Canadians outside Québec had strong opinions 

HP about Québec’s status as a distinct society. Take the 

historical perspective of a Canadian outside of Québec 

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. 


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 Constitution of Canada, 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. 

Figure 16-10 Our Master of Clarity, by 

Aislin, 1999. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, 

who was often criticized for his lack of 

clarity, was the subject of many editorial 

cartoons when he passed the Clarity Act. 

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 Clarity Act, 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 

majority has been achieved—50 percent plus one may not be accepted 

as enough support for separation. 

• All provinces and Aboriginal peoples will be part of the discussions. 

• A constitutional amendment is required before a province can separate. 

Gilles Duceppe, 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 po n d 

1. Create a timeline that includes four or five events in 

HS the history of the constitutional debate from 1989 to 

the present. For each event on the timeline, add a 

note explaining the event’s historical significance. 

2. Find a current news story that reflects how 

C&C Canada’s founding nations—Aboriginal peoples, 

French, and English—continue to influence the 

country’s politics today. Explain your choice. 


HS 

Establishing establishing Historical historical significance 

Significance 

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 Stephen Harper, on passing the motion declaring the 

Québécois as a nation within a united Canada, November 27, 2006 

The popularity of the sovereignty movement in 

Québec has gone up and down since 2000, but the 

movement remains strong among many Québécois. In 

November 2006, the Bloc Québécois asked the House 

of Commons to pass a motion recognizing “Québecers 

as a nation.” Many Members of Parliament (MPs) 

objected, saying the motion did not include a 

reference to Canada. In response, Prime Minister 

Harper introduced a motion that stated, “That this 

House recognize that the Québécois form a nation 

within a united Canada.” 

In his address to the House of Commons, Harper 

stated his government’s position on the motion: 

HS 

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 

passed the motion by a vote of 266 to 16, with support 

from the majority of Conservative, Liberal, New 

Democrat, and Bloc Québécois MPs. 

1. Why was the recognition of the Québécois as a nation 

within a united Canada historically significant Did 

Parliament’s approval of the motion suggest that 

Canadians might be ready to recognize Québec 

as a distinct society Explain the reasons for your 

judgment. 

Despite the overwhelming support for the motion, 

Conservative MP Michael Chong, the minister of 

intergovernmental affairs and minister of sport, 

announced his resignation from his position so he 

could abstain from voting. Chong stated that the motion 

was “. . . nothing else but the recognition of ethnic 

nationalism, and that is something I cannot support. It 

cannot be interpreted as the recognition of a territorial 

nationalism, as it does not refer to the geographic entity, 

but to a group of people.” Other MPs stated that the 

motion was divisive, further damaging national unity. 

Figure 16-11 When federal politicians were debating whether 

Québécois form a nation within Canada, Michael de Adder drew this 

cartoon to reflect his views on the recurring issue of Canadian unity. 

Why might some Canadians have taken this view of the debate 

2. Review Michael Chong’s statement about the motion. 

Do you think his opposition reflected the views of many 

Canadians Do you think the motion had an effect on 

national unity Explain your answer. 


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 

Figure 16-12 Reform Party leader Preston 

Manning is shown with some of the 

party’s campaign materials, including 

a party newspaper that carried the 

headline “What does the West want” 

What demands might the article have 

included 

“The West Wants In” 

In the 1980s many in the western provinces—Manitoba, Saskatchewan, 

Alberta, and British Columbia—felt a growing sense of alienation from 

the rest of Canada. Many western Canadians were tired of being left out 

of the federal government’s priorities and believed that Ottawa did not 

understand or appreciate their needs. These feelings of western alienation 

led to the creation of several new political parties. 

The Reform Party 

In 1987, the creation of the Reform Party of Canada was a result 

of western alienation. The party’s slogan was “The West wants 

in.” Preston Manning, 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 “unite the right” and create a new 

conservative party 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 Canadian 

Alliance. 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 


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 

all Canadians would have access to similar public services, no matter what 

province they lived in. To achieve this, wealthier provinces, such as Ontario 

and British Columbia, gave some of the money they collected in taxes to the 

federal government. The government then redistributed this money to the 

less-prosperous provinces in a transfer known as equalization payments. 

The federal government calculates the amount of equalization 

payments in consultation with the provinces. Many provincial leaders 

question the program. The issues include fairness, level of services, natural 

resource revenues, and how equalization payments are calculated. 

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 

national unity among the provinces Why or why not 

Figure 16-14 Federal Equalization Payments to Provinces (millions of dollars) 

What factors do you think contribute to the amount of equalization payments going to 

each province 

Voices 

I haven’t chatted with any premier 

that thinks equalization is working 

well. That’s a part of the Canadian 

condition. Developing consensus 

on how to fix it—that’s nearly 

as complicated as amending the 

Constitution. 

— Ontario Premier 

Dalton McGuinty, 2010 

Let’s Discuss 

How might equalization payments 

create friction between provinces and 

affect national unity 

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 


475

Figure 16-15 Roy Romanow holds a copy 

of his report regarding the future of 

health care in Canada. Why do you think 

it was called Building on Values 

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 

government to maintain universal health care for all Canadians 

• the federal government should increase contributions to medicare 

• 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 


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 

of the House of Commons. Many Canadians have argued that senators 

should be elected rather than appointed, should more closely reflect 

the cultural diversity of Canada, and should represent the population 

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 

elect its own senator, then that senator could lobby for the interests of his 

or her province. In the 1990s, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney attempted 

to include Senate reforms in both the Meech Lake and the Charlottetown 

Accords, but those reforms were lost when the accords 

failed. Preston Manning and the Reform Party 

vocalized the idea of provincial representation when 

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 eightyear 

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. 

CHECKBACK 

You learned about the roles of 

the Senate in Chapter 6. 

Figure 16-16 In 2010, Prime Minister 

Harper’s minority Conservative 

government tried—unsuccessfully—to 

pass motions in the House of Commons 

approving fixed, eight-year terms 

for senators. How does this cartoon 

represent this proposal for reform 

C C How would Senate reform affect the provinces and 

territories 


477

Figure 16-17 During the financial 

crisis of 2008 and 2009, many auto 

manufacturers closed plants. Manitoba 

was not hit as hard during the recession 

as provinces such as Ontario and Alberta, 

because its economy does not rely 

heavily on one industry or sector. 

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 

their jobs. Unemployed workers do not buy as much, and this affects sales 

in other businesses. As their sales drop, these businesses may lay off more 

workers, and the cycle continues. 

Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia were hit hardest during 

the economic recession, while Manitoba was less seriously affected. In 

2009, Manitoba’s economy grew slightly. This growth was largely due 

to its diversified economy and provincially-funded construction and 

improvement projects. 


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 businessfriendly 

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 

Charlottetown Accords. 

Despite winning majority governments in 1984 and 1988, when 

Mulroney left office in 1993, his popularity among Canadians was the 

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. 

Chr tien’s Liberal Governments 

Jean Chrétien, whose political career stretched back to 

the 1960s, became prime minister in 1993 as Canada 

headed into an economic boom. Prime Minister 

Chrétien’s government made drastic cuts to 

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. 

CHECKFORWARD 

You will learn about Canada’s 

free-trade agreements with the 

United States and Mexico in 

Chapter 18. 

Figure 16-18 CHECKBACK Jean Chrétien (left) and 

Paul Martin (right) were the prime 

ministers of Canada during the unbroken 

series of Liberal governments from 

1993 to 2006. Chrétien served as prime 

minister from 1993 to 2003, while Martin 

served from 2003 to 2006. 


479

Figure 16-19 In 2008, Stephen Harper’s 

Conservative Party formed Canada’s third 

minority government in four years. 

Figure 16-20 Despite having candidates 

in all 308 Canadian ridings, it was not 

until the election of 2008, after much 

arguing among federal party leaders, 

that the Green Party was invited to 

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. 

Minority Governments 

In the 2004 election, the Liberals lost seats, but they still managed to 

form a minority government. Minority governments have less power than 

majority governments and must negotiate with other parties for support to 

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 Green Party of Canada. 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 

under one million votes in 

the election, it failed to win 

any seats in the House of 

Commons. 

Recall . . . R e f l e c t . . . R e s po n d 

1. Review pages 474 to 480 and choose two political 

HS changes that had the most significance for national 

unity. Provide arguments for why they were most 

significant. 

2. What challenges have caused the most tension in 

federal–provincial relations in Canada Why 

C C 


ED 

considering Considering the ethical dimensions of history 

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 

declaring a non-confidence vote against the 

Conservative government on December 8, 2008. If 

a majority of Members of Parliament vote that they 

do not have confidence in the current government, 

then one of two courses of action must be taken: the 

leader of the party with the next highest number of 

seats must try to form a government, or the present 

government must dissolve Parliament and call for 

a general election. The opposition hoped their nonconfidence 

vote would force a new election. 

To avoid the non-confidence vote, Prime Minister 

Stephen Harper asked Governor General Michaëlle 

Jean to prorogue Parliament, as the official order must 

come from the Governor General. The prorogation of 

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 

that the decision to prorogue Parliament was to give 

his party time to consult with Canadians about the 

economy, many opposition leaders believed it was done 

to avoid accountability for the treatment of Afghanistan 

detainees by Canadian forces during the United 

Nations mission in Afghanistan. You will learn about the 

Canadian forces in Afghanistan in Chapter 18. 

Public opinion polls after the second prorogation 

of Parliament showed that 53 percent of those 

polled disagreed with Harper’s request to prorogue 

Parliament. 

Figure 16-21 On January 23, 2010, protestors in Toronto rallied 

against the federal government’s prorogation of Parliament. 

ED 

1. Prime Minister Harper’s prorogation was legal, yet 

many people believe it was unethical. Explain why. 

2. Do you think Prime Minister Harper’s proroguing of 

Parliament was acceptable or not acceptable Explain 

your answer. 


481

Ch a p t 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. 

C C As you review Chapter 16, complete the organizer to 

answer the Essential Question, How has the question 

of national unity influenced federalism, constitutional 

debate, and political change 

Federalism 

National Unity 

Constitutional 

Debate 

Political Change 

2. If you had been a Québécois in 1992, how might you 

HP have interpreted the defeat of the Meech Lake and 

Charlottetown Accords Explain your answer. 

3. Given the failure of both the Meech Lake Accord and 

C&C HS the Charlottetown Accord, do you believe it is possible 

to create constitutional reforms that will be supported 

by all regions in Canada To support your answer, 

explain what has changed—or stayed the same—in 

Canada since the accords. 

4. In the April 2001 issue of Policy Options, columnist 

E Lorne Gunter pointed out some differences between 

Québec and western Canada. Though Québec seems 

C&C 

to really want to leave Canada, Gunter wrote, the West 

really does not. 

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.” 

As a result of this situation, Gunter concluded 

that separating would be harder for Québec than 

for western Canada. “[Separation] would more 

profoundly . . . do more damage to [Québec’s] economy, 

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.” 

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 

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 

the GST (Goods and Services Tax). He also twice tried 

to have Québec sign the Constitution, creating years 

of constitutional debates. By the end of his time in 

office, he was one of the least-popular prime ministers 

in Canadian history, and in the election that followed, 

the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced to 

only two seats. Examine Figure 16-22. What does this 

cartoon say about Mulroney’s legacy Did Mulroney 

deserve the dislike of Canadians, or should he be 

praised for tackling difficult issues Support your 

answer with evidence from Shaping Canada, or you 

may wish to conduct additional research using other 

resources. 

Figure 16-22 Mulroney Takes His Leave, by Éric Godin, 1993. 


6. Examine the political cartoon in Figure 16-23. What 

HS comment did this cartoon make about the inclusion 

of the Green Party and its leader, Elizabeth May, in 

the 2008 televised election debates Do you believe 

that the Green Party of Canada, which focuses on 

the importance of the environment and other green 

strategies, will have a growing influence among 

Canadian voters Why or why not 

7. As you read on page 481, Prime Minister Stephen 

E Harper’s request to prorogue Parliament in 2010 met 

with much protest from politicians and citizens. What 

view does Figure 16-24 reflect of Harper’s decision to 

prorogue Parliament How does the cartoon represent 

Harper Give evidence to support or refute this 

representation of him. 

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

Figure 16-23 Cartoonist Malcolm Mayes created this political cartoon 

for the Edmonton Journal on September 8, 2008. 

Yo u r 

Challenge 

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

Chapter 16 - McGraw-Hill Ryerson

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?