|
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.
|
