|
"Canada: How it Works, Why it Works
and Why it Will Continue to Exist"
Notes for an address at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies
Washington, D.C.
October 15, 1996
This is my first trip outside Canada since Prime Minister Jean Chrétien
convinced me, on January 25, 1996, to leave academia and become Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, in order to help him keep our country united. I am
very pleased that this first opportunity to travel has brought me to our large
neighbour south of the border, the United States and, furthermore, to
Washington, D.C., a city I adore, and in which I spent 1990-91, my only
sabbatical year as an academic. As some of you will know, I spent that
unforgettable year a few steps away, at the Brookings Institution, where I was
welcomed very warmly. I went there to study American federal public
administration. The results of my work will soon be coming out as a book,
co-authored with two other Canadian political scientists, entitled Governments,
Parties and Public Sector Employees; Canada, United States, Britain and France,
published by Pittsburgh University Press. I'm sure you will want to get a few
copies for yourself and for your friends at Christmas!
Something astonishing happened to me while I was at Brookings: the Director,
Thomas Mann, invited me to a brown bag lunch to talk about the political
situation in my country. I didn't realise what I was getting into. Since then, I
haven't stopped talking about the issue: I went from studying public
administration to talking more and more about Canadian unity issues, and now I'm
the minister for Canadian unity. So thank you, Thomas!
Following this mini-conference, the Brookings Institution invited me to
participate in drafting a book called "The Collapse of Canada?"
(1992). I'm the one who insisted on the question mark! And that leads me to what
I want to talk to you about today.
The "collapse of Canada", although not impossible, is unlikely.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the Government of Canada are convinced that if
all Canadians who believe in their country mobilize for the sake of Canadian
unity, we will keep our country united. We are very optimistic and confident
about Canada's future.
Reasons to be optimistic
I am speaking to you as both a Quebecer and a Canadian who is very attached
to both his identities and never wants to have to choose between them. I know
that the vast majority of Quebecers feel the same. Allow me, for a brief moment,
to put on my political scientist's hat and look at the state of public opinion
in Quebec. A poll conducted last February showed that 21% of Quebecers appear to
define themselves as Quebecers only, but that the rest, who represent the vast
majority, identify themselves as Quebecers and Canadians, striking their own
balance between those two identities. I confess that if it were the other way
around, if 79% of Quebecers said that they didn't identify themselves as
Canadians any more, I would be worried. But the fact is that Quebecers want to
stay Canadian, and they are right to feel attached to Canada, since they have
contributed a great deal to building it. Nevertheless, many Quebecers who are
attached to their Canadian identity responded in the affirmative to the question
put to them by the government of Quebec, on October 30, 1995, namely: "Do
you agree that Quebec 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 Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12,
1995?" Quebecers rejected, by a majority of 50.6%, the option that the
secessionist leaders had put forward for the second time in 15 years. Quebec and
all of Canada came very close to being plunged into a crisis whose outcome would
have been very uncertain.
Many Quebecers who are attached to Canada voted as the secessionist leaders
wanted in the referendum because they didn't think that they were voting for
secession. They wanted to affirm their Quebec identity, but did not think that
they would have to give up their Canadian identity. That did not stop the leader
of the secessionist forces, the then Premier of Quebec, calling their vote, on
the night of his defeat, an endorsement for Quebec "independence", a
term he'd never used during the referendum campaign!
A poll conducted at the very end of the referendum campaign showed that close
to 80% of Quebecers who were planning to vote YES believed that, if the YES side
won, Quebec would automatically continue its use of the Canadian dollar; 90%
felt that Quebec's economic ties with Canada would remain unchanged; and 50%
believed they would continue to use a Canadian passport. More than 25% believed
that Quebec would continue to elect federal members of Parliament. Another poll
showed that almost one in five YES voters thought that a sovereign Quebec could
remain a province of Canada.
Those who remind the secessionist leadership of these figures are accused of
insulting the intelligence of Quebec voters, which is far from the truth. It's
obviously not the voters' fault if the secessionists' strategy spread confusion.
Secession is too grave a decision to be taken in confusion. Therefore one can
understand why Canada's Prime Minister, in the February 27 Speech from the
Throne, made a solemn commitment to see that what is at stake, secession, be
made as clear as possible.
Those Quebecers who support secession must understand that this plan means
they would lose their Canadian identity. They must find good reasons for giving
it up. They must find even better reasons for uprooting the Canadian identity
from the hearts of the many Quebecers who are attached to it. They must also
think about the harm they would do to their fellow citizens from the other
Canadian provinces. They must also realize that secession, once achieved, would
likely be irreversible and therefore would affect not only their contemporaries,
but future generations as well.
There is simply no valid reason to make such a grave decision. That is why we
are very confident that Canada will remain united. The Government of Canada is
demonstrating with more determination than ever before, in cooperation with all
those citizens who believe in their country, in particular the Quebec federalist
forces, to what extent the Quebec identity and the Canadian identity complement
one another and why one should welcome them both rather than feel obliged to
choose between the two. The threat of secession will then be averted and
Quebecers, along with all other Canadians, will have found the road to
reconciliation and unity.
When examined closely, none of the arguments that are brought forward in
support of secession hold water, whether they be at the level of language and
culture, that of political structure or that of the economy.
A bilingual federation united by shared universal values
Secession is tempting only among Francophone Quebec voters. The approximately
15% of non-Francophone voters cast their ballots overwhelmingly for Canadian
unity, seeing no reason to choose between Quebec and Canada. Francophones must
be shown that Canada in no way threatens their language and culture, but rather
the contrary. The fact is that since the beginning of Confederation, in 1867,
Quebec has never been as Francophone as it is today. The proportion of Quebecers
capable of expressing themselves in French has reached the unprecedented level
of 94%. In my Montreal constituency, while I must often speak in English to
senior citizens of Greek, Italian or Jewish origins, their grandchildren
automatically speak to me in French.
The advancement of French in Quebec is due in part to Canadian and Quebec
language laws implemented in the 1960s and 1970s. These laws are now largely
accepted, and, while some measures provided for in the Quebec legislation were
struck down by the courts, none of them was of major importance. The issue of
commercial signage is a case in point. In 1977, Quebec legislation imposed
French-only commercial signage. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that
a policy of French predominance was completely justified in this area, but that
other languages could not be banned. That is the policy that now prevails in
Quebec, and on which there is a consensus, with the support of more than 85% of
Quebecers, according to public opinion.
Quebec's language laws are more liberal than those in such irreproachable
multilingual democracies as Switzerland or Belgium. Radical elements sometimes
try to reignite linguistic tensions in Quebec, but they always fail. The
solidarity between Quebec's Francophones and non-Francophones is admirable.
Indeed, there is only one issue that can divide them along linguistic and ethnic
lines: the issue of secession.
The solidarity displayed by Canada's other provinces and territories with
regard to bilingualism and Quebecers' linguistic and cultural distinctiveness is
also solid. A majority of Quebecers and other Canadians support bilingualism.
The failure of constitutional reforms in recent years, which aimed, among other
things, to have Quebec recognized as a distinct society within the federation,
unfortunately created an utterly deplorable feeling of mutual rejection among
too many Quebecers and other Canadians.
The truth is that the vast majority of Canadians want to recognize and
celebrate as a fundamental characteristic of their country the fact that one of
Canada's ten provinces, the second largest, has a Francophone majority, in an
overwhelmingly Anglophone North America.
Thus, a poll in March 1996 showed that 85% of Quebecers and 68% of other
Canadians believed that "the Canadian constitution should recognize that
Quebec, while equal to the other provinces, is different, particularly due to
its French language and culture." As well, 82% of Quebecers and 84% of
other Canadians felt that "Quebec is an essential component of the Canadian
identity". The vast majority of my fellow citizens in the other provinces
want to recognize Quebec's difference, and simply want some help in finding the
words to express the support they have for their fellow citizens in Quebec.
In December 1995, the Government of Canada had a resolution passed in the
House of Commons recognizing the distinctiveness of Quebec society, and an Act
guaranteeing Quebec, and the four other major regions of Canada, that no
constitutional change concerning them would be made without their agreement. The
Prime Minister and the Government of Canada are continuing their efforts to see
those measures entrenched in the Constitution.
The terrible misunderstanding surrounding recognition of Quebec's
distinctiveness has convinced too many Quebecers and other Canadians that their
values are incompatible. That belief is false. In fact, the very opposite is
true. The main reason I am so attached to Quebec society is that it is
completely imbued with the great universal values that make me love Canada. As a
political scientist, I have always been struck by how much Quebecers and other
Canadians strongly support the great universal values of tolerance, solidarity
and justice. To cite one example among many, a poll this April revealed that 74%
of Canadians outside Quebec and 71% of Quebecers believed that "cultural
diversity makes Canada stronger." An international survey comparing 118
cities in the world on the basis of 42 economic, social and environmental
indicators ranked Montreal among the front runners (in 7th place), together with
Vancouver (2nd), Toronto (4th) and Calgary (12th). Our large urban centres have
their difficulties, their problems of unemployment and poverty, and face major
challenges. Nevertheless, they have succeeded in becoming models of cultural
co-existence, and they provide their inhabitants with a level of security and a
quality of life that are difficult to find elsewhere. This is one more reason
why Montreal and Vancouver should stay together, in a united Canada, being so
close in spirit despite the geographical distance that separates them.
Those universal values of tolerance and solidarity in diversity have taken
root in Canada in large part because French and English people have had to learn
to live together, which has prepared them to welcome new fellow citizens from
all corners of the globe. Our history has not always been easy, and, like other
countries, has its darker chapters. The result, however, is the Canada of today,
an admirable human creation. Quebecers and other Canadians have built it
together, which is why they will not give it up.
A decentralized, evolving federation
Canadians' spirit of tolerance has led them to understand, perhaps better
than any other people, that equality is not synonymous with uniformity. It is
that understanding that has guided them in putting in place a decentralized
federation that is always striving for a balance between solidarity among all
and respect for the differences of each.
Canada would never have been able to survive if it had not been a federation
that ensures that Newfoundlanders can be Canadian the Newfoundland way,
Manitobans can be Canadian in their way, and Quebecers can be Canadian the
Quebec way.
The secessionist leaders claim that Canada is a centralized federation that
leaves Quebec too little autonomy. They say our federation is rigid and
incapable of evolving, and describe the federal government as a sort of foreign
power in relation to Quebecers.
The truth is that one of our greatest strengths is precisely that our
federation is based on decentralization. Experts in comparative federalism rank
it among the most decentralized, alongside Switzerland. As a Canadian province,
Quebec enjoys an enviable level of autonomy compared with the components of
other federations. The flexibility of Canadian federalism has also meant that
Quebec is differentiated from the other provinces through specific provisions in
a variety of areas, including civil law, taxation, international relations, the
pension plan, social policy, postsecondary education, and immigration. Far from
being rigid and immobile, our federation is constantly evolving, and that has
not led to a bloated federal government. On the contrary, in the past four
decades, we have seen a gradual and remarkable redistribution of the federal
government's taxing and spending power to the provincial governments. For
example, in 1950, the federal government collected $2.46 for every dollar of
revenue collected by the provinces; in 1994, it collected only $0.96.
Today, faced with a danger that threatens our unity, we need more than ever
to show Quebecers and all Canadians just how well their federation can serve
them. We need a federal government that is more effective in its areas of
jurisdiction, provincial and territorial governments more effective in theirs,
Aboriginal administrations better-equipped to serve their populations, and a
solid partnership uniting all of those institutions. That objective is broadly
shared in Canada, which is why the federal government launched a vigorous plan
to reform the federation in its Speech from the Throne in February.
This reform aims to clarify roles in sectors as varied as mining, forestry,
recreation, the environment, social housing and the economic union. I will limit
myself to describing briefly three key reforms: the federal spending power,
labour-market training and the social union, issues which you Americans are also
facing.
Concerning the federal spending power, the federal government made a
commitment in the last Throne Speech to no longer use its spending power to
create new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction
without the consent of a majority of the provinces. In so doing, we have taken a
major step toward making federal-provincial relations more harmonious and
consensus-driven. This commitment to limit the federal spending power has no
equivalent in other federations; it responds to an historic grievance on the
part of our provinces to the effect that the federal government has used its
revenues to intervene too directly in their affairs, thus forcing them to change
their priorities to satisfy the federal government.
As for labour-market training, the Government of Canada is launching a reform
that gives the provinces greater autonomy in the area of job training and labour-market
development, a public policy area that is very important in the new global
economy, by giving them the opportunity to manage for themselves the
approximately $2 billion a year the federal government currently spends on
active employment assistance measures. The first agreements should be concluded
shortly.
Finally, the Canadian social union is also changing. Financial transfers from
the federal government to the provinces in the area of health and social
programs now give the provinces greater flexibility in setting priorities and
designing programs to meet local needs, while respecting the principles on which
Canada's extensive solidarity is based. The Prime Minister and provincial
premiers have formed a new federal-provincial council on renewing social policy,
to study the implementation of more consensus-driven and efficient mechanisms,
and examine more closely problems connected with child poverty.
It is noteworthy that these major reforms are being initiated with a strong
Quebec presence in Ottawa. The Prime Minister is a Quebecer, as has been the
case for 26 of the past 28 years. The Minister of Finance is currently a
Quebecer, as is the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Human
Resources and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court also happens to be a Quebecer, as is the country's most senior
civil servant. Canada's ambassador to the United States, who is here with us
today, is a Quebecer.
People belong to a federation not only because of what they can get out of
it, but also to contribute their culture and their talents. Quebec men and women
are contributing to the success and the evolution of the Canadian federation,
and we must not lose the synergy they create through contact with their fellow
citizens in the other provinces.
Canada's economic success
Secessionist leaders see justifications for their plans in every difficulty
the Canadian economy experiences. Canada is going bankrupt, they said several
years ago, looking at the heavy indebtedness of our federation. But Canadian
institutions proved that they could handle these difficulties. In fact, Canada
has got its finances in order to the point where its deficit next year will be
one of the lowest in the OECD. Furthermore, seven out of ten provinces have
balanced their budgets, or are recording surpluses, even though they were all in
the red a few years ago. Short term interest rates in Canada have dropped more
than four-and-a-half points since the beginning of last year. The year prior to
our government taking office Canada had, on a borrowing rates basis, the worst
record of any G-7 country, with the exception of Italy. In 1997, according to
the same criteria, Canada will have the best record in the G-7. In its recently
released World Economic Outlook, the IMF predicts that Canada will outgrow all
the other G-7 countries in 1997.
Therefore, the secessionist leaders have changed their target. In the October
1995 referendum, they claimed that English Canada had embraced a conservative
culture incompatible with the Quebec values of social justice and compassion.
They promised that a YES vote would be a shelter against the cold wind of budget
cuts blowing in from English Canada, and a lever for a new spirit of Quebec
social democracy.
The federal government and the majority of the provinces have cleaned up
their public finances, regardless of the political stripe of their governments.
The same clean-up is now the order of the day for Quebec, one of the most
indebted provinces in Canada. Because it is also less wealthy than the Canadian
average, it receives assistance from the wealthier provinces. Canadian
solidarity is expressed admirably in the principle of mutual assistance among
wealthier and less wealthy provinces, through federal government transfers. That
principle, which is likely carried further in Canada than in any other
federation in the world, means that there are currently seven provinces that
receive assistance from what are now the three wealthiest provinces: Ontario,
Alberta and British Columbia. In the 1930s, however, Alberta received assistance
from the other provinces, including mine. That is what makes Canadian solidarity
so great. Quebecers are currently benefiting from the assistance of their fellow
citizens in the wealthier provinces, and will one day be able in turn to give
special assistance to their fellow citizens in the less wealthy provinces.
For a number of months, the Government of Quebec has been following the lead
of the other provinces in undertaking a courageous plan to put its fiscal house
in order. We can look forward optimistically to the future, thanks to the
resources of Quebec's economy, Quebecers' unique culture, cooperation among
governments and solidarity among all Canadians. The Government of Quebec will
succeed, despite the costs of political uncertainty linked to its senseless
plans for secession.
I am against secession not because I think Quebecers are incapable of
managing their own independent state. I believe that we, Quebecers, are called
to a greater ideal: that of continuing to improve the superb economic and social
success that is Canada; that of fighting alongside our fellow citizens against
the scourges of unemployment and poverty; that of continuing to ensure that
comparisons by international bodies such as the UN or the World Bank continue to
rank Quebecers so highly in so many areas of human activity.
The solidarity that unites Quebecers is exemplary, it is a strength that
makes them greater and nurtures confidence in their economic and social future.
And yet, their solidarity is complemented no less admirably by that which links
them to their fellow citizens in the Atlantic provinces, Ontario, Western Canada
and the North. Quebec and Canadian solidarity complement each other wonderfully,
and it would be not only an economic absurdity, but, in particular, a moral
error, not to keep both of them for ourselves and for our children. We need to
take on the formidable challenges of the 21st century together.
Conclusion
Our country deserves to survive, and its chances of succeeding are excellent.
Quebecers and other Canadians will stay together because we have achieved
something irreplaceable in the world. We can be proud of our linguistic and
cultural harmony, our economic success and the uniqueness of our institutions.
We must improve our federation, and our government has launched major
initiatives to that end. We can recognize, in complete confidence, Quebec's
distinctiveness as a fundamental characteristic of our country.
That is what I believe I have shown you here today. I have done so by
highlighting Canada's advantages, rather than the risks of secession. I have
said almost nothing of the score of uncertainties, the clash of legitimacies,
the economic and social upheaval, and the host of difficult negotiations we
would be faced with if we undertook to choose among our fellow citizens rather
than all staying together within Canada. I have not yet mentioned the important
bone of contention between us regarding the legality or illegality of a
unilateral declaration of independence and the request for clarification to that
effect that has been addressed to the Supreme Court.
I will say about secession simply that it must not be seen as an opposition
between Quebec and Canada, which would form two monolithic blocs. I am opposed
to secession and want to fight against it with all the strengths democracy gives
me because it would tear apart first and foremost my society, because it would
pit Quebecers against Quebecers. Secession, with the uncertainties it generates,
is the type of issue that can plunge the most tolerant populations into
intolerance.
Secession is defined as a break in solidarity among fellow citizens. That is
why, in its wisdom, international law extends to peoples the right of
self-determination in its extreme form, that is the right to secede, only in
situations where a break in solidarity is evident, such as in cases of military
occupation or colonial exploitation. The secessions that have taken place to
date have always arisen out of decolonization or the troubled times that follow
the end of authoritarian regimes. It is not simply a matter of chance that no
well established democracy that has experienced ten years of universal suffrage
has ever faced secession. Such a break in solidarity appears very hard to
justify in a democracy.
Canada, a universal model of openness, tolerance and generosity, is the last
country in the world where identity-based fragmentation should be allowed to
triumph. You Americans understand that instinctively. That is why you prefer
that Canada remain united, while taking great pains not to interfere in
Canadians' affairs. Your preference for Canadian unity is, of course, not due
only to your economic interest. You, who have the heaviest international
responsibilities, fear that the possible break-up of this great bilingual and
multicultural federation would set a bad example for the rest of the world, at a
time when identity-based tensions are raging in so many corners of the globe.
According to Professor Elazar of Temple University in Philadelphia, there are
currently some 3,000 human groups who are conscious of a collective identity.
And yet, there are currently only 185 states recognized in the UN, 86% of which
are multiethnic in composition. The belief that any population with its own
distinctive characteristics must have its own state is completely false. I do
not want to see that belief triumph in my country. It is not only impractical,
but also a moral error, because by learning to have their component cultures
live together, states give their populations the opportunity of elevating
themselves. By allowing them to experience tolerance, the cohabitation of
cultures within the same state helps human beings to become better citizens.
Trying to ensure that everyone is part of a majority wherever he or she lives
would be pointless and even destructive. We need to seek the means by which
confident, flourishing minorities and cultures can live together within a single
political structure. The presence and influence of the Quebec minority within
Canada strengthens not only Canadians in the other provinces, but also Quebecers
themselves, through the complementarity of their Quebec and Canadian identities.
Quebecers and other Canadians do not have the right to fail. They must move
closer to one another and achieve reconciliation. They must succeed not only for
themselves and for their children, but also -- and why not? -- for the other
inhabitants of this poor planet, who see in Canada a source of hope and a
country that has been blessed by fortune. President Truman said just that when
he cited the Canadian experience as an example for all the peoples of the world:
"Canada's eminent position today is a tribute to the patience, tolerance
and strength of character of her people. Canada's notable achievement of
national unity and progress through accommodation, moderation, and forbearance
can be studied with profit by sister nations."
And, without wanting in any way to get involved in your presidential
campaign, I would like to conclude with a quotation from President Clinton,
which I feel sums up the essence of what I wanted to say to you today: "In
a world darkened by ethnic conflicts that literally tear nations apart, Canada
has stood for all of us as a model of how people of different cultures can live
and work together in peace, prosperity and understanding. Canada has shown the
world how to balance freedom with compassion."
Check against delivery.
|
