|
"Building Bridges to National Reconciliation"
Notes for an address to the
Annual Social Studies Council Conference of the
Alberta Teachers' Association
Lethbridge, Alberta
October 18, 1996
It seems particularly appropriate for me, as a former educator and the current
federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to address an audience of
teachers at a conference called "Building Bridges." As Minister, I see
a key part of my role as promoting national reconciliation -- building bridges
between Canada's provinces and citizens. I would thus like to thank the Alberta
Teachers' Association for giving me the opportunity to talk to you about my
vision for national reconciliation.
I am pleased that Senator Joyce Fairbairn could be with us today. She is an
Albertan who has worked diligently on behalf of the people of her province and
her country. She has also long recognized that the diversity of our nation is
one of its great strengths. Joyce has had a long relationship with the people of
Quebec, and her empathy with Quebecers has been demonstrated on many occasions.
It came as no surprise to me that she came to Montreal two weeks ago to pay a
last tribute to Robert Bourassa.
As Minister with special responsibility for Literacy, Senator Fairbairn has
done a tremendous job of making her Cabinet colleagues aware of how important
strong literacy skills are for Canadians' participation in the life and economy
of their country. A recent OECD report put the matter succinctly: "People
are the key resource and their level of literacy is a powerful determinant of a
country's innovative and adaptive capacity." I am sure many of you would be
as fascinated as I was by the report Reading the Future that the National
Literacy Secretariat produced in association with the OECD and Statistics
Canada. I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts of both Senator Fairbairn and all
the teachers here today to improve Canadian literacy.
It is a pleasure to be here in the city of Lethbridge, since it is twinned
with the town of Saint-Laurent in my riding. As some of you will know, these two
communities have also addressed the issue of building bridges. In fact, every
year, bridges of friendship and mutual understanding are built between
Lethbridge and Saint-Laurent -- and hence between Alberta and Quebec -- through
an exchange program. It is part of the twinning arrangement the two communities
have had since 1967. The program alternates on a yearly basis between seniors
and teenagers -- those who have most to tell us about the value of Canadian
citizenship, and those who are just beginning to learn about it.
The exchange program allows Canadians with different backgrounds,
experiences, and, in many cases, a different language, to learn about each
other. It allows them to appreciate their differences, but also to see what they
have in common. Getting Canadians to know each other better is an integral part
of the process of national reconciliation. I can vouch for the program's success
on this front, because I have read what participants in this year's exchange
program had to say about their experiences. I would like to share some of their
observations with you.
A Quebecer, Mrs. Johanna Tousignant, commented on how her hosts in Lethbridge
"opened their homes and their hearts to us Quebecers." Her visit
helped her realize, she wrote, "that some of the major qualities to foster
harmonious living together have to be mutual openness, respect and
understanding." She calls this attitude "active tolerance." It
was exemplified, she wrote, by the offer made by her Lethbridge host, a Mormon,
to accompany her to Catholic Church for Sunday Mass. A Lethbridge senior, Ms.
Agnes Vernooy, wrote that, although her limited French was put to the test
"many times", she appreciated "the opportunity to hear their
point of view and their opinions." And a Lethbridge couple, Mr. and Mrs.
Joe and Eveline Polczer, wrote about what they learned at their farewell supper
in Quebec: "the food was excellent, the wine flowed freely and as we sat
around one large table, we sang and laughed and talked and the two of us
realized what a distinct society Quebec really has."
During last October's referendum, all Canadians lived through a difficult
period, the citizens of Lethbridge as well as their friends in Saint-Laurent. In
the wake of that referendum, I reflected on what had caused many Quebecers to
turn their backs on the Canadian federation. To do so, I might add, in spite of
the fact that three out of four agreed, in a poll taken a few months before the
vote, that they felt proud when they saw the Canadian flag and heard the
national anthem. What, I asked myself, had gone wrong?
I concluded that there were three key factors in the dissatisfaction shown by
some Quebecers. First, Quebecers, like many other Canadians, want to see a more
efficient division of responsibilities between the federal and provincial
governments. They want to know that the services they receive are delivered in
the most efficient way possible. Second, they are concerned about preserving and
enhancing their culture and language. They feel that their unique situation in
Canada has not been adequately recognized. And third, federalists in Quebec have
not done enough to speak up for Canada.
These conclusions point to three steps that need to be taken on the road to
national reconciliation. They are:
- moving toward a rebalanced, more efficient division of responsibilities
between the two levels of government;
- recognizing the distinctiveness of Quebec; and
- celebrating what is positive about Canada, and Quebec's role in it.
Today, I will discuss each of these steps in turn, and bring you up to date
on what our government is doing.
1. Rebalancing the federation for greater efficiency
A win-win vision for change
Before I talk to you about realigning government powers and responsibilities
in Canada, I would like to explain my approach to these issues. For some
politicians and political scientists, the word ‘decentralization' has become a
mantra. Decentralization for them, it seems, is both the means and the end.
I approach the issue of rebalancing the federation from a different starting
point. Perhaps that's because I've spent a lot of my life focusing on public
policy. For me, the point of rebalancing the federation is to provide better
service to Canadians. I believe that providing optimal public service to all
Canadians involves striking a balance. I often refer to it as the balance
between the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.
By solidarity, I mean the sense of common good and compassion for our fellow
citizens, which allows us to act together, in common, to pool our strengths.
This spirit is perhaps most evident at times of tragedy -- as with the
pan-Canadian efforts in response to the Edmonton tornado of 1987, and, more
recently, the horrendous Saguenay floods in Quebec. But it is an essential part
of the Canadian character on a day-to-day basis too.
I believe this principle finds expression in our social union. This has
allowed Canadians to build a society based on fairness and care for others. It
has given us our health care system, comprehensive employment insurance system,
support for seniors, and equalization payments. Furthermore, the social union
promotes the atmosphere of stability which makes Canada so attractive to
investors. In fact, according to the Fraser Institute, Canada is one of the best
places in the world to do business. Our social union underlies our economic
union, which, according to a study by UBC's John Helliwell, published this
August, is "much tighter and more closely woven" than previously
thought. Canadian provinces such as Quebec trade twenty times more with each
other than they do with American states of a similar size and distance. Our
economic union, then, is more fundamental to our well-being than we realize.
All provinces have benefitted in one way or another, at one time or another,
from our socio-economic union. In the 1930s, your province benefitted from
transfers from other provinces. Now, Alberta's enviable economic situation
allows it to help those provinces which are presently less well-off, such as my
own. Quebec is rightly able to benefit from the sharing of wealth that has been
part of the Canadian tradition for decades.
However, Canada should not be seen as a cheque book to be divided out among
provinces according to population. Canada is a family of provinces, territories
and people. Quebec and Alberta both benefit from membership in this family.
Alberta's Provincial Treasurer, Jim Dinning, put the matter very eloquently when
he said: "Albertans believe in the principle of equity. Clearly those who
have sometimes are going to be asked to pay more than those who have not [...] I
don't believe this government is a believer in cheque book federalism."
Reflecting on Alberta's experience in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, Mr. Dinning
concluded that "we are in fact net beneficiaries of being a partner in this
country."
Furthermore, all provinces benefit from being part of a large internal
market, having a stable currency, sharing the international influence that comes
with being a G-7 member, and having the capacity to even out economic
fluctuations in different regions. The provinces are also all benefitting from
the reductions our government has brought about in the federal debt-to-GDP
ratio, which are reducing costs throughout the economy. The lower interest rates
achieved between January 1995 and June 1996 have, for example, provided the
Alberta government with $165 million in savings.
Clearly, if Quebec were ever to separate, there would be a serious rupture in
Canada's tradition of solidarity. The real implications of this could not be
measured in dollars and dimes. For it would be a serious blow to the Canadian
dream of different cultures living together harmoniously, each lending its own
particular strengths and talents to the pursuit of the common good. A matter as
serious as this, then, deserves to be debated with as much clarity as possible.
For that reason, our government has referred certain key questions to the
Supreme Court. However, we remain confident that Quebecers will choose the
solidarity of renewed federalism, rather than a lonely step into the unknown.
I realize that some Albertans may not see the possible secession of Quebec as
a cause for concern. They may think that, given Quebec's geographical distance,
and the fact that it is not one of Alberta's biggest trading partners, it would
be business as usual in Alberta after a Quebec secession. I would say to people
who think this way that they should think again. Imagine how difficult it would
be to restructure Canada in the wake of Quebec's departure. How would Ontario,
which would have half the country's population and GDP, reconcile itself with
the other provinces? How would we handle the geographical separation of Atlantic
Canada from the rest of the country? Furthermore, what would happen to our
membership in the G-7, and the benefits it brings? What would be the effects on
our country's closely woven internal trade? The reorganization implicit in
Quebec's departure would be very costly and unfortunate for all Canadians. I
believe that the break-up of our country is unlikely. But I don't want any
Canadian to take the break-up of Canada lightly. National reconciliation is
profoundly important for each and every one of us.
I will now turn to the other principle of our federation, subsidiarity, or
the principle of local autonomy, of keeping government close to the people. This
is the spirit that has allowed the Canadian federation to build on a multitude
of local strengths. It is the principle of adapting to the needs of each
province and region of the country.
Emphasizing the need to strike a balance between solidarity and subsidiarity
stops us from reducing federal-provincial relations to a zero-sum game. What all
politicians should be aiming for is a win-win situation for Canadian citizens,
not a victory for one level of government in a win-lose situation. We
politicians must never lose sight of the fact that it is the health, safety and
welfare of living, breathing Canadians that is being discussed. In matters such
as this, we should not be using the winner-takes-all approach. That is
appropriate when the Edmonton Oilers take on the Calgary Flames, but is hardly
suited to renewing an entire country.
The steps our government is taking
To improve Canada, we must follow a win-win approach and build on its
strengths. Being a federation is undoubtedly one of those strengths. The French
philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that he envied those nations which have
a federal system, since he believed such systems were "most favourable to
the prosperity and freedom of man." Many people today share his envy, for
it appears history has proved him right. Four of the five richest countries in
the world -- Canada, the United States, Germany and Switzerland -- are
federations. Federations do so well because they are flexible, adaptable and
able to strike a balance between solidarity and subsidiarity.
Canada is one of the most decentralized federations in the world, and its
provincial governments enjoy far more autonomy than their counterparts in the
United States. And the trend over the past decades has been towards even greater
decentralization. This is shown by a variety of indicators. For example, for
every dollar spent by the provinces on goods and services, the federal
government spent $2.46 in 1960, and only sixty-six cents in 1994.
Even though we have become more decentralized over the years, our government
acknowledges the desire of Quebecers and other Canadians for a more efficient
distribution of powers between the federal and provincial governments in certain
areas. We have taken substantial steps in this direction. In this year's Speech
from the Throne, we announced that we were prepared to withdraw from certain
areas, including labour-market training and forestry and mining development. We
are also working with the provinces to preserve and strengthen the health and
social services system. These initiatives are in public policy areas that are
very important to Albertans and Quebecers, so I will discuss each of them
briefly in turn.
I'll start with labour-market training. It is an important sector for
Canadians, because in the global economy of the 21st century we will be unable
to maintain our competitive advantage without a highly skilled labour force.
When the federal government entered this field, it did so for legitimate
reasons. Since it is constitutionally responsible for unemployment insurance, it
introduced programs to help Canadian workers break free from the cycle of
unemployment. Nevertheless, ultimately we arrived at a situation where there was
overlap between federal programs and those set up by provincial governments
because of their responsibility for education.
Now, however, our government has moved to eliminate any conflict or overlap.
We have made a proposal to the provinces, offering them clear responsibilities
in this field. This includes managing the approximately $2 billion the federal
government currently spends each year on active employment measures. But we will
also strive to ensure that the requirements of solidarity are met in, for
example, the matter of labour mobility. Labour mobility is an important facet of
our socio-economic union, and also important for ensuring an optimum economic
performance for Canada as a whole.
My colleague Pierre Pettigrew, the Minister of Human Resources Development,
will negotiate mutually agreeable accountability frameworks with the provinces.
They will have responsibility for active employment measures and labour-market
training, while the federal government will act in areas that are pan-Canadian
or multilateral in scope.
We have taken a similar approach to forestry and mining. Some people have
dismissed our initiatives in these areas, saying these sectors are unimportant.
I know that Albertans, including federal Natural Resources Minister Anne
McLellan, can put them right on that one!
Canada's forests sustain an industry worth $44 billion each year. It accounts
for 25% of all manufacturing investment and more than three-quarters of a
million direct and indirect jobs -- or one job in every fifteen. In Alberta,
recent developments in the forestry sector have contributed to the province's
diversification and growth prospects. In addition, forest products account for a
substantial part of Canada's net trade balance. The mining and mineral
processing industry, meanwhile, directly employs 341,000 Canadians. In 1996 and
1997, it is expected that 49 mines in total will open. This represents 9,800 new
direct and indirect jobs. In 1995, mining accounted for 47.5% of the goods
component of Alberta's provincial GDP -- the largest single component.
Anne McLellan has not only been an excellent Minister of Natural Resources.
She, like Senator Fairbairn, has also done an outstanding job representing the
people and interests of Alberta. Both women have been vigourous advocates for
their province while, at the same time, maintaining their commitment to the best
interests of Canada. The way in which they both approach their responsibilities
provides a clear example of how complementary the principles of solidarity and
subsidiarity are.
Forestry and mining are provincial jurisdictions under the Constitution. This
makes sense, since the provincial governments are closer to the natural
resources, and to the people who will be affected by their exploitation.
Contrary to what myth-makers would have us believe, the Government of Canada did
not unilaterally encroach on these areas. Rather, it became involved principally
through joint programs.
The federal government has now committed to continue with only those
activities which it makes sense for a national government to undertake. For
example, on the research and development side, crucial to our competitive
advantage, a national role clearly yields substantial economies of scale. This
is because it cuts out duplication and overlap, while giving individuals and
companies access to a unique database and world-renowned expertise. It makes far
more sense to have one national database rather than 10 provincial and two
territorial ones, with all the duplicated efforts that would involve.
Flexibility is one of the strengths of federalism. We are building on this,
making the federation more flexible where possible, so that provincial
governments can better respond to regional needs. A good example is in the
sphere of health and social services, where the principles of subsidiarity and
solidarity are clearly in action. Our country's system of health and social
protection is founded on strong subsidiarity: it is the provinces who manage and
deliver care and services. This makes sense, since the provincial governments
are closer to people, and have a better understanding of their needs.
Nevertheless, it is the aspects of the system which emphasize solidarity that
Canadians cherish. These aspects -- universality, accessibility,
comprehensiveness, portability and public administration -- are upheld by the
federal government, with the support of Canadian citizens.
The Canada Health and Social Transfer, put in place by our government,
injects new flexibility into the element of subsidiarity, while ensuring respect
for solidarity. The CHST provides provincial governments with stable and
predictable funding. This means they have more room to set their own priorities,
and to design their programs to reflect local needs.
There has certainly been a great deal of debate in the field of health care.
Our government remains committed to upholding the five principles of the Canada
Health Act, as the Canadian public wants. And federal Health Minister David
Dingwall will work with his provincial counterparts to ensure that Canadians
have a strong, efficient and effective health care system. Meanwhile, a
federal-provincial council, co-chaired by Minister Pettigrew and Alberta's
Minister of Family and Social Services, Stockwell Day, will be working to ensure
our social safety net is well-prepared for the challenges of the next century.
The need for progress on social reform is clear. Saskatchewan and British
Columbia, in particular, have both been leading proponents of the need for quick
action on child poverty, and they have welcomed the federal government's
agreement that it is important to make early progress in this area.
Environmental policies are another area of concern for many provinces. At
present, there is a federal-provincial initiative underway in an effort to
identify problems jointly, determine which order of government is best placed to
address specific issues and, more generally, to respond to the desire of the
provinces for greater involvement in an area that is important to all Canadians.
Western provinces, especially Alberta and Manitoba, have argued for
environmental harmonization.
To summarize, then, we are taking concrete steps to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of the different levels of government. And we are doing so
within the optic of providing better service to the Canadian public.
Our federation is already working well. But there is always room for
improvement when it comes to serving the Canadian public. To paraphrase Winston
Churchill's comments on democracy, I won't pretend that our federal system is
perfect. It's just better than all the available alternatives.
We have an effective federation and a fair one too. Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien wants to address the problems of each region. As his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs who have been given responsibility to work on the
unity issue, it is my duty to work with all provinces to help build a stronger
federation. Let me take a moment to present some recent initiatives that the
Liberal government has taken to address the needs and concerns of Western
Canada.
At the strong urging of the Prairie provinces, and Alberta in particular, the
federal government has been working diligently to reduce foreign government
agriculture subsidies. In the Uruguay Round of the Multilateral Trade
negotiations, Canada played a lead role in pushing for more open trade in the
agricultural sector. This openness will allow Canadian farmers greater access to
foreign markets, and you can rest assured that the federal government will
continue to press for a fair international marketplace for our goods.
Another area where the federal government is moving to address certain
Western concerns is with regard to the mandate and structure of the Canadian
Wheat Board. As many of you are no doubt aware, this is not an easy issue to
resolve. There are divided views throughout the Western provinces on how best to
deal with this very important matter. But the federal government, under the
leadership of Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale and in cooperation with the
provinces, will continue to work towards establishing a reasonable balance in
the modernization of the Wheat Board.
The Pacific salmon fishery is another Western concern that the federal
government is taking concrete measures to address. The Government recently
signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the province of British Columbia to
deal with the impact of the Pacific Salmon Revitalization Plan. The federal
government is also making progress in discussions with the United States under
the Pacific Salmon Treaty to establish a bi-national panel that would make
recommendations to both governments to deal with Canadian concerns about
overfishing of chinook salmon.
The prestige of a united Canada at the international level is a clear
advantage for the provinces when they need to protect their interests in matters
such as salmon, or, for example, forestry -- just look at the federal
government's work on behalf of B.C. at the United Nations' Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests -- or the recent agreement on softwood lumber that has been
difficult to negotiate with our sometimes forceful American neighbours.
Canada survives and prospers because we are a federation. This federation
must be fair for each of its provinces and must take into account the special
needs of all.
2. Recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness
And this leads me to the second aspect of our approach to national
reconciliation. It involves, as you will remember, recognizing the
distinctiveness of Quebec.
I am often asked, why is this necessary? After all, people point out, French
has flourished in Quebec under the present federal system. Almost 94% of Quebec
residents say they can speak French, the highest level since the early days of
Confederation. In Canada as a whole, 31.5% can express themselves in French. The
Canadian legal system allows for the civil law tradition to continue in Quebec.
Quebec's current sign laws allow for the predominance of French on commercial
signs. And, according to former Chief Justice Brian Dickson, the courts already
take into account Quebec's distinctiveness when interpreting the Charter of
Rights and the Constitution.
Part of my answer about the need for recognition requires you to perform an
exercise of the imagination. Imagine that Alberta is the only English-speaking
province in a continent of 300 million Francophones. That French is the globally
predominant language for business, media and the Internet. Imagine that, within
Canada, you are outnumbered by Francophones three to one. Now you are beginning
to understand how many Francophone Quebecers feel. Wouldn't you, in this
situation, want some sort of guarantee that you would have warm support from
other Canadians for the preservation of your language and heritage?
I believe that more and more Canadians are starting to accept the idea of
Quebec receiving some form of recognition. Three provincial premiers -- Roy
Romanow of Saskatchewan, Frank McKenna of New Brunswick and Brian Tobin of
Newfoundland -- have had the courage to invite their fellow citizens to show
support for Quebec's distinctiveness. Premier Ralph Klein, while not endorsing
the words "distinct society", has said that he has no problem with the
idea of acknowledging the need of Quebec for a recognition of its uniqueness,
which he defined in terms of culture, tradition, language and law.
Nevertheless, I realize that some people remain worried that recognition of
Quebec would give it powers and privileges above and beyond those of other
provinces. That Quebecers would be, in a sense, Canadians Plus: having all the
rights other Canadians have, and then some. I know these issues are of concern
to many Albertans, because they've told me face-to-face and in their letters.
In response to these concerns, I wrote an article that was published in the
Calgary Herald this July. In it, I pointed out that these fears are unfounded.
This is another aspect of my response to why we should recognize Quebec's
distinctiveness: it will take nothing away from other Canadians, but will mean
an awful lot for a lot of Quebecers. And it would be a beautiful thing for
Canadians to do.
In my article, I explained what recognizing Quebec as a distinct society
would do. It would require the courts to interpret constitutional and Charter
cases in light of Quebec's unique situation in an Anglophone North America. As
I've already mentioned, former Chief Justice Brian Dickson has said that, at a
practical level, the courts are already doing this. I'll defer to his superior
knowledge on that question. So recognition would not entail a radical departure
from the situation we have now. It would merely turn a matter of convention and
practice into a more solid commitment.
It would also be in line with Canadian practice at the public policy level.
When our government works with the Alberta government and industry stakeholders
to promote development of the oil sands, it does not necessarily use the same
pattern that is used to promote the economic renewal of Montreal. Why not?
Because the contexts are different. All citizens are equal, but that does not
mean the government should not respond to the diversity of their needs and
circumstances.
Recognizing Quebec's linguistic and cultural differences involves the same
principle used in other public policy areas. It responds to a unique need and
circumstance, without undermining the equality of provinces or that of citizens.
We can be equal but different. And, in the words of a popular fast food chain
here in Alberta, different is good! I believe that this country's great
tradition of tolerance and openness would be continued through the recognition
of Quebec.
For these reasons, Parliament recognized Quebec as a distinct society. But
constitutional recognition would give a seal of greater permanence. And it would
go a long way to ease the concerns of people drawn to the YES option last
October because they feared for the future of the French language and of
Quebec's culture.
3. Celebrating Canada
We need to celebrate Canada more, and Quebec's role within it. It isn't hard
to find reasons to celebrate our country.
Economically, and in terms of quality of life, Canada is performing well. The
UN rates Canada as the best place in the world to live. We are one of the top
five OECD countries in terms of per capita GDP. From 1960 to 1990, we were
number 2 in the G-7 in terms of economic growth, and number 1 in terms of job
creation. We have the lowest long-term unemployment rate among G-7 countries.
And the International Monetary Fund has predicted that Canada will lead the G-7
countries in economic growth next year, buoyed by our low interest rates and our
exports to the United States.
In another field, and in spite of our World Cup performance, I still believe
that we are the country that plays the best hockey in the world.
But, today, I want to suggest to you that we should celebrate Canada for
greater reasons than its benefits for our pocketbooks. I said to you earlier
that the cost of Quebec leaving could not adequately be measured in dollars and
dimes. And I would also say that the reasons for staying together cannot be
adequately described in those terms.
Earlier this year, France's Minister of Culture said that "Canada is an
example of a successful response to the problems that face the world."
(unofficial translation) I agree with him wholeheartedly. Quite simply, Canada
is an outstanding human achievement. It is a multicultural society, with two
official languages, stretching thousands of kilometres from coast to coast to
coast, and yet able to bridge those kilometres and that tremendous diversity
with its values of tolerance, openness and compassion.
People throughout the world share these values, and see Canada as a shining
beacon of hope, showing what can be achieved when they are incorporated into the
way a country is run. Canada demonstrates that different cultures within one
state can work together, their diversity a powerful force for the common good.
It shows that the cohabitation of cultures within the same state makes us all
better citizens and better human beings, since we have a fantastic opportunity
to develop tolerance and to learn different approaches to the challenges we
share. It allows us to develop the "active tolerance" that the
participant in the exchange program between our two cities saw in the actions of
her hostess here in Lethbridge.
New technologies are increasingly turning the world into the global village
envisioned by Marshall McLuhan. And with that new reality, it is becoming
increasingly obvious that we will have to find ways to co-exist peacefully. This
will be the imperative of the 21st century. In Canada, we already have an
important edge in this respect. We have already, within our borders, adapted to
this new global reality. And we have the responsibility of showing the world
that fragmentation and antagonism are not the best approach to diversity.
Quite simply, Canada deserves to remain intact. The beacon of hope and
inspiration it represents should not be extinguished.
If it is to continue intact, however, we must not let the appreciation of our
country be the exclusive preserve of non-Canadians. We must celebrate what we
have achieved together, and we must ensure that the role of Quebec is not
overlooked. In this respect, I think of the performance of the 4 x 100 metre
Canadian relay team in this year's Olympic games. By coincidence, one of the
four runners, Bruny Surin, is from Quebec, just as Quebec makes up a quarter of
Canada's population. They were a team that made the world sit up and take
notice. They were a team we could be proud of.
I'm not suggesting that you should all leap out of your armchairs cheering
wildly when you see coverage of the next Team Canada trade mission on TV. But I
do hope that all Canadians, including Quebecers, will stop and think at times of
all the good things our country embodies. Think about the tolerant, open
community we have built. Think about how our compassion has led us to important
measures of mutual support, notably our health care system. Think about how our
system has evolved to respect the difference and diversity that gives Canada its
special flavour. Think about the inspiration our country gives to those abroad
because of its reputation for respecting diversity and individual rights. Think
about all these things we have achieved together already, Manitobans and
Newfoundlanders, Albertans and Quebecers. And think about what we can achieve
together in the future.
Conclusion
I know that many Canadians were unnerved by the Quebec referendum of last
October. That is why, almost a year afterwards, I wanted to outline the steps
the Government of Canada is already taking to bring about national
reconciliation.
We are opening a new chapter in federal-provincial relations, in which the
federal government will work in partnership with the provincial and territorial
governments, and our other socio-economic partners, to improve the way our
federation works and to guarantee the future of the Canadian ideal. An ideal
which shows that humanity can overcome its linguistic and racial divisions, and
act with compassion and tolerance to harness diversity and make a greater whole.
An ideal that is bigger than any province or region. This is what we must
preserve for ourselves, for our children, and as a model for the world.
Our country, quite simply, deserves to stay intact. It gives us such
tremendous opportunities as citizens. I was born in Quebec City, and now I live
in Montreal. I have my own way of being Canadian -- I don't have to be Canadian
in the same way as someone from Lethbridge or Grande Prairie or Peace River. I
know instinctively, however, that sharing this same country with these people --
and with you here today -- makes all of us better human beings.
Check against delivery.
|
