Government of Canada, Privy Council Office
Francais Contact Us Help Search Canada Site
What's New Site Map Reference Works Other PCO Sites Home
Subscribe
Archives - Press Room

Archives - Press Room

Notes for an address on the
Economy and National Unity

Canadian Life and Health
Insurance Association Inc.

Ottawa, Ontario

May 30, 1996


Thank you, Mr. President.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are insurance professionals, so perhaps you should be giving this speech instead of me, and telling Canadians what premium we should pay to insure Canada!

If I do my job well, if the Government of Canada does its job well, and if all those who believe in Canada do their jobs well, that premium will drop considerably in the months or years to come.

And yet, a country like ours should not need to be insured, because it comes with a guarantee. A guarantee of freedom, peace and tolerance that is conferred by democracy, the first characteristic of the Canadian federation. Canada is a fantastic country: a country that it is worth working and struggling for to keep united.

But why does Canada deserve to survive?

A. Economic reasons

Canada deserves to survive for economic reasons, certainly. I don't believe they are the most important reasons, but they do have great value, and I'd like to talk about them first.

It is said sometimes that it would be better to concentrate on the economy and jobs, rather than national unity.

My answer to that is: "It's the same thing." The link between the economic situation and the danger of secession is obvious. Talking about the Canadian economy also means talking about the danger of secession.

Political uncertainty influences economic stability.

In a recent article published in the newspaper La Presse, the Groupe des Cent, a non-partisan think tank of more than 1,000 young men and women, asked a very pertinent question: "If you were an entrepreneur intending to invest in Quebec and it was proposed that, in the near future, you would have to deal with a "made in Quebec" recession, a reduction of your domestic market, and changes to the laws that govern your activities, wouldn't you think twice before investing? [...] The negative impact of political uncertainty is not a trivial psychological block: it's real, it's important, and it's getting worse."

Even Premier Bouchard acknowledged that political instability is hurting the economy. On the program Le Point on March 21, he said: "I won't deny that it may be possible that there are foreign investors who are saying, well, let's wait until things are settled in Montreal and Quebec before going to Montreal."

On May 10, the President of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Power Corporation, Mr. Paul Desmarais, said somewhat the same thing to his company's general assembly in Montreal: "Divisive policies of separatism and the threat of a future referendum on the issue will only prolong the uncertainty and insecurity that have burdened us for so long. Make no mistake: business avoids uncertainty, and opportunities are permanently lost as a result."

Before the referendum, the Government of Quebec tried and tried, with the LeHir studies, to make secession more sellable. We know what happened with those studies. In one of those studies, on the impact of separation on the City of Montreal, the economist Mario Polèse estimated the number of jobs that would be lost in Montreal at under 5,000. In an article in the newspaper The Gazette in early May, Mr. Polèse explained, "Knowing what I know now, I personally believe it would have been a catastrophe."

Even Mr. LeHir said in his recent letter of resignation that political uncertainty is hurting Quebec's economy. Mr. LeHir may not be the best person to listen to; his credibility took a beating last year. But a recent edition of the magazine L'actualité revealed that the Government of Quebec was expecting a certain amount of panic in financial circles in the event of a YES win in the referendum.

As a result, the PQ government had set aside $37 billion in cash to deal with the situation. $37 billion!

Even though that's an astronomical amount, financial experts doubt that it would have been enough. According to Bill Robson, a senior analyst at the C.D. Howe Institute, that amount would probably be insufficient. This is what he said in an interview with the newspaper The Gazette: "It's not clear to me even a war chest of that size, talked about here, would be sufficient to plug all those holes."

The Moody's credit rating agency noted in a recent report the Government's effort to reduce the debt, put public finances in order and restore investors' confidence in the Canadian market. Despite those positive factors, however, Moody's rejects the possibility of Canada's quickly regaining its triple-A rating, and mentions that the political uncertainty caused by the threat of another referendum is a major stumbling block. As you know very well, a lower credit rating means higher interest rates, and, in the long run, a slowdown in economic growth and job creation.

There are many economic studies that prove that secession would be costly. Those studies assume that all citizens and governments would act as rational economic agents, and that, even if peopled acted only on the basis of economic rationality, the costs would still be high. But we are well aware that human beings are not inspired only by an economically rational model of behaviour. Not on this planet! People have more human and emotional considerations, such as attachment to Canada or to Quebec. And when they would have to make a wrenching choice between Canada and Quebec, no one can guarantee how they would behave. Especially considering that that choice could take place in the absence of legal security for everyone, in the wake of the uncertainty that an illegal declaration of independence would cause. That's why talking about the national unity issue also means talking about the economy. I am sure that, as informed businesspeople, you are all well aware of that.

B. Social reasons

The economy is indeed very important. In my opinion, however, the main reason that must motivate us to work for Canadian unity is that our country is a tremendous human achievement, and we do not have the right to let it be lost.

Our country is such a wonderful human achievement because it has demonstrated that it is possible for different populations of different cultures and languages to live together in harmony and respect for others; that it is possible, over and above barriers that may be posed by culture, language, or religion, to share the same values of peace, generosity, respect and tolerance.

That's what Canada is, and that's why it is respected and envied by so many on the international scene. It is the country that gives the best guarantee that human beings will be treated like human beings, with full dignity.

Breaking up Canada would be a monumental mistake. There would first be repercussions for Quebec, and also for Canada as a whole, and I would even say for the entire world.

Secession would result in the division of Quebec society. And it would remain divided for many years to come. Let's take the example of when Newfoundland entered Canada in 1949. At the time, Newfoundland was an almost bankrupt dominion, and London, the titular power, had suggested that the situation could not go on any longer. A decision had to be made, and Newfoundlanders chose to enter Canada in an atmosphere of division.

Historians tell us that it was more than a generation before Newfoundlanders were reconciled, even though their standard of living increased considerably with the coming into effect of the Canadian welfare state, the Canada Pension Plan and so on.

Imagine the case of Quebec, that would not have left an almost bankrupt dominion, but one of the most admired countries in the world, whose standard of living would drop substantially after secession, in the opinion of the vast majority of economists. Imagine the damage that would be done to Quebec society, and how long the period of reconciliation would be.

Secession is a traumatic experience that Quebec society does not need to impose on itself. It has made a powerful contribution to building Canada, a remarkable country that is its own.

That's the situation with Quebec. But Quebecers must also consider whether they are ready to break the ties of solidarity that unite us with other Canadians, and to bring about the hurt that would cause to our fellow citizens in the Atlantic provinces, Ontario, and the West.

And, having considered that, all Canadians will have to consider very carefully that their problem, the survival of Canada, is not just a Canadian problem. It is a problem that would have international repercussions.

In such a situation, we must let ourselves be guided by the words of Montesquieu: "If I knew of something that could serve my nation but would ruin another, I would not propose it to my prince, for I am first a man and only then a Frenchman, because I am necessarily a man, and only accidentally am I French." But even if secession were a good thing for us--and I am convinced it would not be--the consequences for the rest of the world would also have to be assessed.

If Canada were to break up, worried majorities would hold it up as an example. It would be said that this defunct federation had died from an overdose of decentralization and tolerance--in short, from an overdose of democracy. Its demise would serve as an alibi for everything that one can expect from hardliners in the face of minorities' aspirations.

Canada has become the homeland of tolerance because of its history. The French and English were obliged to find common ground. It wasn't always easy; our history has some dark chapters, but the end result is admirable. Canada today is an open, tolerant and prosperous country.

Canada is a jewel that Quebecers and other Canadians have offered to humanity. They must preserve that jewel. Quebec society is an admirable society within Canada. A society in which, apart from the rift that the debate on secession is creating, people get along well with one other, live in harmony, and enjoy an excellent quality of life.

In short, we can see clearly that, the more the economy suffers from political uncertainty, the social fabric of Quebec is also damaged.

C. Where do we go from here?

We can make the federation work better so that all Canadians, including Quebecers, will feel more and more at home within Canada.

We indicated in the Throne Speech on February 27 that, among other things, we need to clarify the role of governments, limit our own spending power, recognize Quebec as a distinct society, eliminate unnecessary duplication, ensure the viability of our social safety net, and reduce barriers to internal trade.

The major reform to labour-market training that we are announcing today is part of that process. That partnership offer illustrates how much of a strength the federal system is for Canada. By maintaining a federal government that is strong in its own responsibilities, provincial governments that are strong in their responsibilities, and strong partnership relations between our two orders of government, we will be creating the best opportunities to serve Canadians ever more effectively.

There was a broadly based feeling throughout Canada that the role of governments needed to be clarified in the field of labour-market training and job development, a key sector for the well-being of Canadians. It was no easy task, because we well know that other countries are still looking for structures that would enable them to meet the employment needs of their citizens and their economies.

Our partnership offer will allow each province to develop policies and programs to meet its needs, in a spirit of flexible federalism. The Government of Canada will retain only those responsibilities that its Canada-wide position makes it capable of fulfilling.

This offer is eloquent testimony to how Mr. Chrétien's government intends to renew the federation: by applying tangible solutions to the real problems that affect Canadians in their everyday lives.

To survive, Canada must be what it is: a federation.

Most countries with a high standard of living are federations. Four of the five countries with the highest standard of living are federations: the United States, Germany, Switzerland, and Canada.

I believe that federations work, and are well positioned to compete with unitary countries. In my opinion, federalism has helped Canada to prosper first and foremost because it is a flexible, dynamic system that has struck the right balance between two fundamental principles: solidarity and diversity. Those are our strengths.

Canada has attained a level of democracy, freedom, fairness and prosperity that is almost unequalled in the world. That achievement has been possible in large part because we Canadians have been intelligent enough to practise a kind of federalism that well reflects the ideals of solidarity and respect for diversity.

We are lucky to be a federation. Federations are well positioned to compete effectively against unitary countries, where the centre is often smothered by responsibilities. By building on our strengths--tolerance, diversity, deep-rooted Canadian solidarity, and federalism--Canada will survive to preserve its unity for ourselves and our children.

Conclusion

I can summarize my speech today in just a few sentences.

First, Canada is an admirable country. It is a remarkable human achievement, whose population is treated as human beings must be treated. In that regard, I could quote President Clinton, United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and many others. I want to give you just one quotation, however: "Canada is a land of promise, and Canadians are a people of hope. It is a country celebrated for its generosity of spirit, where tolerance is ingrained in the national character. A society in which all citizens and all groups can assert and express themselves and realize their aspirations." Those words, which ring so true, and could have been uttered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier or Pierre Trudeau, were in fact said on July 1, 1988, by the then Secretary of State, the Honourable Lucien Bouchard.

Second, Canada can be improved. This time, I'll quote Prime Minister Chrétien: "It is true Canada is not perfect. But I cannot think of a single place in the world that comes closer. Not a single place where people lead better lives. Where they live in greater peace and security. Why does Canada work? Because our country has always been able to adapt and change to meet the hopes and aspirations of our citizens. We've done so in the past. We're doing so today. And we will continue to do so in the future." We will succeed in making Canada more acceptable for all Canadians, including Quebecers, by building on our strengths, which is that the Canadian federation is a decentralized system that accommodates both solidarity and diversity.

My third conviction is that breaking up Canada would be more than an economic catastrophe. It would also be, above all, a human disaster, because of the serious moral conflicts that negotiating break-up would entail. That is why the Government of Canada intends to guarantee Canadians legal security under all circumstances, even the most painful, namely negotiations for secession. And in that regard, I have one final quotation to propose. It's something that was said by former Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau during a debate in the National Assembly: "But there is the law, Mr. Speaker. We are a state governed by the rule of law. Canada, Quebec, are not banana republics. There is the law. There is the Constitution. There is international law. And we have all been elected to defend the law."

The priority of the Government of Canada is to help Quebecers and other Canadians to achieve reconciliation. They have to talk to one another, have more exchanges, clear up misunderstandings, make their federation work better, and celebrate Quebec's wonderful distinctiveness within Canada. They must achieve reconciliation, not just because they are fellow citizens, but also because they are fellow inhabitants of this poor planet.

Check against delivery.  


  Printer-Friendly Version
Last Modified: 1996-05-30  Important Notices