|
"The National Unity File:
Reconciliation, Recognition, Renewal"
Notes for an address to the
Cercle canadien de Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
January 27, 1997
Introduction
I read in your newsletter announcing my speech that I would be talking about
the three "Rs" of national unity: reconciliation, recognition and
renewal. Since I always follow orders, I will therefore honour your request and
address those three themes. Indeed, I do so with a great deal of pleasure and
conviction, and I am honoured to be your first speaker of the year. As business
people, as professionals who probably deal in both languages, you have a key
role in promoting those three "Rs"; and, since we are at the beginning
of a new year, you may wish to add that role to your New Year's resolutions...
the ones you intend to keep, that is!
This idea of the three "Rs" of national unity has been making
headway since it was proposed by the Coalition of the Hellenic Canadian
Congress, the National Congress of Italian Canadians, and the Canadian Jewish
Congress, which released its policy statement on national unity on November 26
last year. I met with the Coalition members on that occasion. That group is
doing a great job in trying to promote reconciliation through dialogue and
communication between citizens, communities and regions in Canada. The proof
that their ideas are excellent is that their main themes have been taken up
today by your group, for which I am delighted.
The only thing I don't agree with is that, in your newsletter, you associate
these three "Rs" with the idea of constitutional renewal. I don't
agree with that because we're not dealing with a merely constitutional problem;
we're dealing with a larger problem, a problem of unity, which goes far beyond
the Constitution, as I intend to demonstrate in my speech here today.
A mistake that has been made in the past is to think that changing the
Constitution is the only way to solve anything. That mistake led us to two
setbacks in five years, and provoked a deep-rooted feeling of rejection and a
hardening of positions, both in Quebec and elsewhere in the country.
As a professor, I referred to this as a constitutional obsession, which I
defined as the absurd belief that nothing can change unless the Constitution
changes, and that the Canadian federation is incapable of evolving with the
times. It seems to me, on the contrary, that a great many things can be done to
transform our federation without changing the Constitution, and that our
federation is in fact continually evolving.
In practice, constitutions evolve more often through legal interpretations,
specific agreements and the exercise (or non-exercise) of powers than through
amendments as such. Look at how things have changed over time in the United
States, for example. Even though its Constitution, one of the oldest in the
world, has not changed at all in its written form, that federation has evolved
considerably. And yet, of the some 9,100 amendments that have been proposed
since 1789, only 26 have been ratified.
In Canada, nowadays, intergovernmental agreements and federal-provincial
consultation mechanisms enable our federation to be renewed considerably without
necessarily resorting to constitutional amendments as such. Federal
constitutions are thus not straitjackets that stymie change; instead, they
provide a flexible legal framework that allows for initiatives and favours
change. Indeed, that is why the United States and Canada have been able to
evolve in very different directions. The United States has become much more
centralized over time, in spite of a Constitution that its founding fathers
wanted to be decentralizing. In contrast, the Constitution of Canada, which was
meant to be centralizing at the time of Confederation, has enabled us to become
one of the most decentralized federations in the world.
Reconciliation
If we want to save Canada, if we want to leave to future generations this
country that is a model of success for the entire world, we must build bridges
of reconciliation among provinces and citizens throughout the country, we must
make the effort to understand and know ourselves better. Above all, this
reconciliation must take place in people's hearts and minds, not just on a piece
of paper signed by politicians.
In my opinion, there are two ways to interpret our current political crisis.
The first is that the existence of a strong secessionist movement in Quebec
proves that the Canadian federation doesn't work, that Quebec's interests and
those of the rest of Canada are irreconcilable. The second, which I strongly
believe in, is that the Canadian federation does work, even though it can and
must be improved, and that interests can be reconciled. Our federation will
realize its full potential if we all decide, both Francophone and Anglophone
Quebecers and other Anglophone and Francophone Canadians, to live together in
harmony, respecting our differences and the things we take pride in, within a
united federation.
Most of you are businesspeople and professionals, opinion leaders; you
experience the reality of biculturalism as part of your everyday lives. You can
greatly help the success of national reconciliation by building bridges, by
promoting dialogue by both sides. The risk of secession and the tensions and the
cost of today's political uncertainty will not disappear on their own. We must
convince Quebecers and other Canadians that reconciliation is possible without
anyone having to renounce his or her pride, cultural authenticity, or, in
particular, language. We must convince all Canadians that language is not merely
one difference among many; it is something that is very important in human life.
Language is a formidable barrier, but we can overcome it. Indeed, we have
never been in a better position to overcome it than we are today. People are
more educated and have a greater desire to learn other languages; young people
in particular are aware that knowing more than one language can expand their
horizons; bilingualism is more present now than in the past, and we have to
build on that to achieve reconciliation.
I am delighted by the Ontario government's decision to allow Franco-Ontarians
to manage their own schools and to create seven new Francophone school boards,
in addition to the four that already exist. That initiative strengthens the
progress taking place in Ontario with regard to the delivery of services in
French to citizens.
So let's try to overcome that barrier of language, which makes us so distant
from one another, and to celebrate our ability to be Canadian in different ways,
rather than dreaming of some homogeneous model which has nothing to do with what
our country is all about. Newfoundlanders or British Columbians, for example,
cannot be asked to be like Quebecers; all of us are Canadian in our own way, and
that doesn't stop us from being proud that we all belong to the same country,
Canada. Governor General Vincent Massey was right when he said that
"toleration of differences is the measure of civilization."
Recognition
That brings me to the second "R", recognition. The fears some
Canadians have about recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness are unfounded. Such
recognition would not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and would not
override any federal powers.
Former Supreme Court Chief Brian Dickson has noted that the Supreme Court
already takes recognition of Quebec into account in its decisions, and that the
formal entrenchment of such recognition would merely ratify that practice. The
most important decision of that nature was the Ford case in 1988, in which the
Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule on the constitutionality of some
sections of Quebec's Charter of the French Language (Bill 101). The Court
considered the linguistic situation of Quebec in North America and concluded
that the legislation was a response to a substantial and pressing need: the
protection of the French language. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a
policy designed to make French the predominant language on commercial signage in
Quebec was justified, but that a prohibition against the use of other languages
could not be justified.
Recognizing Quebec's difference would be a way for all Canadians to assert
their solidarity with Quebecers' efforts to preserve a vibrant, dynamic
Francophone society within an English-speaking North America.
While non-Francophone Quebecers massively reject secession, many of them
support recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness. They consider themselves to be
a part of Quebec society, and wish to remain in Canada, and see no contradiction
between these two aspirations. Although the secessionist option is driven by
goals they do not share, they feel strongly that Quebec society is theirs as
well, because they are helping to strengthen it, alongside their Francophone
fellow citizens. In its very distinctiveness, Quebec society belongs as much to
them as it does to Francophones. After all, Quebec Anglophones are the only
minority in North America which lives with a Francophone majority. While wanting
their own rights to be respected as well, they simply ask that their Francophone
fellow citizens be helped to flourish in this English-speaking continent.
Canada has developed a number of instruments to recognize Francophone
reality. The Official Languages Act and the protection for the French language
under the Constitution and the Civil Code of Quebec are good examples of this.
While some measures were controversial when first introduced, they are now
accepted as an integral part of the Canadian identity.
The resolution by the House of Commons and the Senate, passed in December
1995, proclaiming that Quebec is distinct by virtue of its unique culture, civil
law tradition and Francophone majority, was inspired by that same respect of an
historical and contemporary reality. In the last Speech from the Throne, the
Government expressed its support to the entrenchment of those provisions in the
Constitution.
I am confident that we will succeed in convincing Canadians in the majority
Anglophone provinces of the need to recognize the unique spirit and culture of
Quebec society, and to enable it to flourish securely within the Canadian
federation.
Renewal
I'll finish with the third "R", renewal of the federation, the
purpose of which is to guarantee better service for Canadians. I believe that,
to deliver services to the public of comparable quality nation-wide, we need to
strike a proper balance between the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.
By solidarity, I mean a sense of sharing in the common good, a sense of
compassion for our fellow citizens. This spirit is perhaps most evident at times
of tragedy, as with the Canada-wide efforts following the Edmonton tornado of
1987, and, more recently, the floods that devastated Quebec's Saguenay region.
This principle of solidarity is also applied within our social union. It has
allowed Canadians to build a society based on justice and care for others. It
has given us our health care system, a comprehensive income support system,
support for seniors, and equalization payments.
The other principle, subsidiarity, makes it possible to bring government and
decision-making closer to the people. The principle of subsidiarity advocates
adapting to the needs and abilities of each province and region of the country.
By emphasizing the quality of services to the public and reconciling the
principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, we avoid the mistake of reducing
federal-provincial relations to a zero-sum game. All politicians must seek to
serve Canadian citizens better; we must never lose sight of the fact that the
health, safety and welfare of Canadians are at stake.
The initiatives we are putting forward to renew the federation are guided by
those principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, with a view to improving even
further the quality of services for Canadians.
Let's look at job training, for example, which affects Canadians directly.
You know as well as if not better than I do that there is a growing need for a
highly skilled labour force for advanced technologies and international
competition. So many developing countries now offer cheap labour that we must
train our labour force accordingly if we want to be able to remain competitive
and offer the wages and quality that our Canadian standards require.
That's why my colleague Pierre Pettigrew is actively negotiating with the
provinces on a general framework which allows them to assume full responsibility
for active employment measures and job training at the local level. The federal
government will act only where responsibilities are clearly pan-Canadian or
multilateral in scope. The negotiating framework is flexible, and gives maximum
autonomy to the provinces that want it. The others that opt for maintaining the
federal role in active measures will be able to count on our support. Alberta
and New Brunswick have already signed agreements on this matter, and others are
soon to follow.
This is an example of an initiative combining the two principles of
solidarity and subsidiarity. One the one hand, the federal government will
always be there to help provinces find common solutions, should the need arise.
On the other hand, because the provinces know the education field well, they
have responsibility for it. The new federal-provincial partnership in the labour
market field will also better serve Canadians looking for work.
In the same vein, Mr. Pettigrew has met with his provincial and territorial
counterparts to discuss the two priorities set by the premiers at their Annual
Conference last August: implementation of a national child benefit program and
harmonization of programs and income support measures for persons with
disabilities. All ministers have recognized the urgent need for action, stating
that federal-provincial cooperation is the best way to find effective,
innovative solutions to the challenges we face.
Let's see how those principles of subsidiarity and solidarity can help us in
this case. They allow us to rely on the provinces' ability to design and manage
services, and, at the same time, on the federal government's strength of having
an overall perspective on the nation-wide redistribution of wealth.
Other equally important issues require joint action by the federal government
and the provinces, not only for the quality of life of our citizens, but also
for our industries. One such issue is environmental protection. Here again, the
principles of solidarity and subsidiarity come into play, because, while the
local environment is managed locally, broader externalities must be managed as
well. This makes agreement between the two orders of government a must. Last
November, the federal and provincial governments agreed in principle on an
environmental harmonization agreement, which will enable both orders of
government to coordinate their activities more effectively. The agreement will
serve as a framework for other agreements. A subsidiary agreement on
environmental standards, inspection and assessment should be ratified in May by
the federal and provincial governments. My colleague, Environment Minister
Sergio Marchi, is doing a great job on this issue. Beyond questions of
jurisdiction, the important thing is for government and business to work
together to be more effective, so that present and future generations have
access to high environmental quality.
The principles of solidarity and subsidiarity are just as important to our
economic union as they are to our social union; the provinces manage specific
situations and the federal government has the capacity to ensure overall
redistribution.
Inspired by these two principles, we will succeed in eliminating
interprovincial trade barriers that still exist despite the Agreement on
Internal Trade. The provinces must have the flexibility to develop their own
economic strategy, but that must not hamper our capacity for joint action. Those
barriers are stymieing one of the key objectives of our federation, which is to
ensure the free movement of goods, services, labour and capital throughout
Canada. Indeed, they are weakening our economic union and sapping our
international competitiveness. The Canadian Manufacturers Association has
estimated that internal trade barriers cost Canada 1% of GDP a year, or nearly 7
billion dollars.
The Agreement on Internal Trade, which came into force in 1995, is a key
element of our economic union and of renewing the Canadian federation. Its
provisions apply to most key sectors of the economic union. Nevertheless, there
are still too many obstacles that limit its effectiveness. For example, we can
do much better with respect to harmonizing standards nation-wide; dispute
resolution procedures could be simplified and improved; and the Agreement could
be applied on a broader basis by using trade rules more comparable to our
existing international commitments. To make those improvements, we need the
provinces' cooperation, and my colleague Minister Manley is working to get
things moving in that regard. Progress is being made, but there needs to be more
and it needs to come faster; it's just too important. I'm sure that you, like
many other business communities, are counting on an even stronger and more
effective economic union to become more competitive at home and abroad, and I
encourage you to help make this a central part of the national economic agenda.
Solidarity and subsidiarity are just as necessary and reconcilable when it
comes to exports. If there is one formula that embodies the synergy and
complementarity of those two principles, it's Team Canada. There's a very good
reason that the federal government and the provinces work in partnership on
those trade missions; it's important that the Prime Minister of Canada travel
with the premiers because they bring a good grasp of their respective economies.
At the same time, this Canadian showcase allows each province to promote itself
to foreign importers and investors; it gives our businesses better access to
expanding markets such as Asia.
The advantage of being a federation is that, on the one hand, each province
has the ability, together with its business and labour communities, to design
strategies linked to its resources and its culture, while on the other hand, we
benefit from the strength of the Canadian whole. We in Ontario and Quebec are
members of APEC, which Canada is chairing this year. Asia-Pacific is a promising
future market for us precisely because we share this country with our fellow
citizens in British Columbia.
I could talk about many other areas that are covered by initiatives to renew
the federation, such as forestry, mining, tourism, and social housing, but I
think my time is almost up. What is important to remember is that we are seeking
to manage more effectively areas of interdependence between the two orders of
government; that the quality of services to the public is a core concern of the
federal government; and that the initiatives we are implementing to renew the
federation are based on the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, which are
the strength and the success of our federation.
Conclusion
As Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said recently, to keep Canada strong and
united, we need "to make sure that when we will move into the 21st century,
we will move with a country [...] that will keep giving an example to the world
that we can be different and equal at the same time. A country that is always
preoccupied about the people who are weak in society and helping those who are
in difficulties [....]"
If each of you works to promote the three "Rs" -- reconciliation,
recognition and renewal -- in your respective communities, you will be making an
invaluable contribution to the national unity process.
Check against delivery.
|
