|
"CANADA IS GOING TO MAKE IT AFTER ALL"
NOTES
FOR AND ADDRESS AT THE BIENNIAL
CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR
CANADIAN STUDIES IN THE UNITED STATES
MINNEAPOLIS,
MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER
21, 1997
Since all of you here today are avid students of Canada, I know that you're all
very interested in the future of my country. In the wake of the Quebec
referendum of 1995, there have been a number of articles in the U.S. media
suggesting that Canada will not enter the next millennium in one piece. So I
want to make a prediction here, in Minneapolis, the hometown of the Mary Tyler
Moore show: "Canada's gonna make it after all!"
You are right to study Canada! It's a good
country to study because it is a country that achieves great things, both abroad
and at home.
Canada and the world
Canada is a good global citizen, projecting
beyond our borders our values of generosity, tolerance and an unswerving
commitment to peace and democracy. Let me give you just a few examples of what I
mean.
Canadians can be proud that each time we have
sent our army outside our borders in this century, it was to defend democracy or
to join other countries in peacekeeping missions. And we can be proud that our
country invented insulin rather than the atomic bomb. It was a Canadian --
former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson -- who came up with the idea of an
international peacekeeping force, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Since
that time, many thousands of Canadians have served on international peacekeeping
missions, and over one hundred have given their lives in the service not only of
their country, but of mankind as a whole. I would just like to quote one of
these brave individuals, Master Corporal Mark Isfeld, who died removing
landmines in Croatia on June 21, 1994. I think his words sum up what
peacekeeping is all about. Writing to a friend about the dangers of
anti-personnel devices, he said: "I know what this stuff can do. Civilians,
small children, don't. My skills are to protect them. [We] think of how many
lives [we] are saving, not of the one [we] risk."
Today, Canada is leading the worldwide effort to
ban anti-personnel mines, which have killed and disabled tens of thousands of
people. Ninety per cent of these victims were civilian, many of them children.
And some 500 new victims are added every week. Our government is very encouraged
that over 100 countries have got on board the Ottawa Process, which will
culminate in December with the signing in the Canadian capital of a treaty
banning the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines.
Your fellow American, Nobel prize winner Jody Williams, recently praised Canada
for taking the world down a new path: "had Foreign Minister Axworthy not
taken the initiative last year, pretty much on his own, shocking the diplomatic
world ... we would not be here today," she said.
It was also a Canadian, John Humphrey, who took
the lead in authoring the original draft of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which, as Eleanor Roosevelt predicted, has become "the
international Magna Carta of all mankind." Today, with our policy on
international development assistance, Canada is among the countries that invest
the most effort in advancing democracy, human rights and the status of women.
Our democratic tradition, our commitment to the rule of law and our bilingual,
multicultural society have prepared us well to help Eastern European countries
and the former Soviet Union make the transition to democracy. Canada's
reputation as an open and tolerant society places us in a good position to
provide advice on governance, institutional reform and minority rights'
legislation.
Building our values
One reason why Canada developed into such an open
and tolerant society is that our country has been marked from the beginning by
its diversity: Anglophones, Francophones and Aboriginal peoples. Today, Canada
-- like the United States -- is one of the most culturally diverse nations on
earth.
The English and the French, traditional enemies
on the Old Continent, had to learn to live together in the New World. Of course,
this was not an experience without friction. But while Francophones experienced
difficult times and suffered injustices, the French community within Canada,
anchored in large part in Quebec, resisted the almost overwhelming pressure of
the English language in North America, not merely surviving, but prospering.
Canada is by no means unique in experiencing such
tensions. No diverse society is immune to them -- whether they be rooted in
language, ethnicity or culture. The United States has known its fair share, both
historically and in recent times. Today, California, Hawaii and New York City
all provide examples. But you are working to resolve these tensions through
dialogue.
Likewise, British and French settlers learned to
respect and accept one another. This learning process readied us to welcome
those from every corner of the globe who, more recently, have become Canadians.
It has often been said that Canada is a mosaic. Certainly, like the individual
pieces in a mosaic, each different community in Canada contributes to the
overall design of our nation. Over time, we have learned to transcend our
differences of language and origin to develop values and beliefs that unite us,
such as openness, civility, generosity and a commitment to peace.
Canadians from coast to coast, regardless of
which province they live in, share a strong sense of solidarity and community.
Canadians of all regions are committed to sharing and caring for one another,
and working towards our common good. You know, when one of your ex-presidents
campaigned on making the U.S. a "kinder, gentler nation", many people
thought he was talking about Canada! Canadians' belief in pulling together is
perhaps most evident at times of tragedy, such as the floods that devastated
Quebec's Saguenay region last year, and this summer's Red River disaster, which
saw much of southern Manitoba under water. On both these occasions, thousands of
people from across Canada donated cash and goods and shared in the sense of
grief of those who were directly affected. The fact that the custodians of the
Saguenay relief fund sent $1.5 million to Manitoba demonstrated, perhaps more
clearly and poignantly than anything else, Canadians' commitment to helping one
another out.
This sense of national community nonetheless
allows each province and cultural group within Canada to have its own way of
being Canadian. Cultural diversity is both a fact of life for Canadians and a
vital value of our society. In fact, Canadian nationalism is perhaps unique in
the world in that, on top of being very low-key, it is based upon the
celebration of diversity and difference.
Quebec within Canada
Part of why Canada is great is that Quebec is a
part of Canada. I am speaking to you today as a proud Quebecer and a proud
Canadian. For me, these two dimensions of my identity reinforce each other, and
I am very attached to both of them. I am proud to be a part of what Quebecers
have achieved together -- the vibrant, predominantly French-speaking society
that we have built, against the odds, in a continent where English dominates.
And I am also extremely proud to be part of what our wider family -- Canada --
has achieved. Opinion polls show that I am far from alone in feeling this way --
the vast majority of my fellow Quebecers define themselves as both Quebecers and
Canadians, in spite of the best efforts of secessionist leaders.
Quebecers have played a key role in making Canada
what it is today -- indeed, for 26 of the past 28 years, the Prime Minister of
Canada has been a Quebecer. And within Quebec, we have built a society that,
like Canada as a whole, is caring, respectful of diversity, tolerant and
democratic. Quebec's entrepreneurs, with the support of both the federal and
provincial governments, have made it a world-class centre for high-technology
industries, including pharmaceuticals, hydro-electric power, aerospace and
biotechnology. Our cultural scene is one of the most dynamic, creative and
exciting among Francophone societies. Today, our artists dazzle the world:
Céline Dion, Robert Lepage, the Cirque du Soleil and the Montreal Symphony
Orchestra, to name but a few. And, as a sports fan, I can't resist pointing out
that Canada's first world champion Formula One racing driver, Jacques Villeneuve,
is from Quebec, not to mention a disproportionate amount of the National Hockey
League's star players, past and present!
All this goes to prove, as I said a few moments
ago, that Quebecers have succeeded not only in preserving a majority-French
speaking society on this continent, but in flourishing as one. As I am sure you
will agree, this is no small achievement. Since the beginning of Confederation,
Quebec has never been as Francophone as it is today. In 1997, no less than 94%
of Quebecers can express themselves in French. This is due in part to Canadian
and Quebec language laws that were introduced in the 1960s and 1970s to
recognize and protect the status of the French language. Although initially the
subject of some controversy, it should be pointed out that Quebec's language
laws are more liberal than those found in other democracies such as Belgium and
Switzerland.
Why secession is wrong
When they see how successful Quebec has been
within Canada, certain people make the mistake of thinking that some Quebecers
want to secede because Quebec is less tolerant than the rest of Canada. That is
not the case. Quebec is a wonderful society. The problem is not Quebec society,
it is secession as such. Secession is the type of issue that can breed
intolerance and division in even the most tolerant and democratic societies.
Quebec, like Canada as a whole, is a society
where liberal democratic values are strongly entrenched. Quebecers, like other
Canadians, are very open to other cultures. No less than 82% of Quebecers,
according to a 1996 opinion poll, believe that immigrants represent a cultural
enrichment of our society. The most recent figures available show that over a
one-year period, Quebec families adopted 881 children internationally, from such
countries as China, Haiti and Vietnam.
And the language of mainstream Quebec nationalism
-- whether federalist or not -- does not indulge in the idolization of race that
dominated nationalist discourse in many parts of the world in the early 20th
century. Quebec nationalism is civic rather than ethnic and, when expressed with
openness and channelled towards the good of all Canadians, it can be a positive
force for our country.
Some Quebecers believe that to protect their
Quebec identity, they have to secede. They are wrong. Quebecers have achieved a
great deal within Canada, both in our own province and in working with other
Canadians for the good of the country as a whole. Why should my fellow Quebecers
have to give up one dimension of our identity, one dimension of our
achievements? From the very beginning of Canada, Quebecers have worked to enrich
and enlarge our country. We have always had our eyes on the horizon. Why should
we now lower our gaze?
Secession is a divisive and dangerous issue. It
is a political act in which one group of people turn their backs on the rest of
their fellow citizens. The Quebec separatist leaders say: "Why should we
continue to have human bonds of solidarity and citizenship with other Canadians?
Let us preserve only the cold ties of economic self-interest." But in a
democracy, we should not be talking about deserting our fellow citizens.
Democracy requires us to maintain and enhance our ties of community and
solidarity. Indeed, it is very hard to reconcile secession with democracy. It is
no coincidence that international law only recognizes a right of secession in
colonial situations or cases of violent oppression -- that is, in situations
where the full rights of citizenship are not granted to all.
In a recent article in the Boston Globe, Lester
C. Thurow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote that in the new
global economy, smaller states are becoming more viable than they once were, so
"everyone feels much freer to opt out of big countries and create more
homogenous small countries", including Quebec, which "doesn't need the
rest of Canada economically." Actually, John McCallum of Canada's Royal
Bank estimates that trade between two Canadian provinces is, on average, 14
times greater than trade between a Canadian province and an American state after
adjustments are made for the size of the market and the distance involved.
Moreover, provinces within Canada benefit from the stabilization provided by
equalization and other transfer payments. Borders matter. And clearly there is
much more involved in a secession than economics. Secession would be
economically bad for Quebec, but it would also be morally wrong and, from a
practical point of view, it would be a mess.
Secession is an extreme solution, one of the most
divisive acts possible in a society. The secession of Quebec would not only
break up Canada. It would pit Quebecers against Quebecers, and breed intolerance
in what is a very tolerant and open society. In a country as democratic, as
rich, as successful and as respectful of diversity as Canada, there is nothing
to justify secession.
And it would send the wrong signal to the world.
Canada has been a model to the world in terms of its ability to accommodate --
and celebrate -- diversity. But secession would set an unfortunate precedent.
According to Daniel 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 only 185 states recognized by the UN. The belief that every
society with its own distinctive character should become a state could clearly
wreak havoc on this planet. You, as Americans, with your burden of
responsibilities in the world, especially want Canada to stay united.
Quebec is not a failure, Canada is not a failure
-- but secession would be. In the next century, when the main challenge of many
states will be how to have different populations living together, Canada will be
needed more than ever as a model of tolerance and openness. If we fail to
preserve our unity, we will send a very sad signal to the rest of the world --
the message that even a country as blessed by fortune as Canada cannot
successfully bring together populations with different languages and
backgrounds.
Misconceiving Quebec and Canada
Something that is spurring me on a lot in my job
at the moment is the extent to which the existence of a separatist movement in
Quebec is distorting the image of my province and my country abroad. Whereas, in
the past, we have been admired, today we are cited as examples of "what not
to do" and even "what to avoid at all costs." So today I'd like
briefly to address two misconceptions that exist about Canada and Quebec.
1. Having "a Quebec"
One reason I came into politics is that I do not
want majorities to be afraid to give rights to their minorities. In my very
first statement as a minister, I said that "if Canada were to break up,
worried majorities would hold it up as an example. It would be said that [it]
had died from an overdose of decentralization and tolerance -- in short, from an
overdose of democracy .... Rather than spreading distrust between majorities and
minorities in this way, we must instead show that different populations can live
in harmony within a single state." Your Congress is considering offering
Puerto Rico the possibility of becoming a state. But critics are saying that
this would create "America's Quebec" (1). And we heard the same type
of argument recently on the other side of the Atlantic -- "don't give
Scotland or Wales a parliament because you will create Quebecs in Britain."
My dream is that majorities will say the reverse:
"Look, we can be comfortable with our own minorities and accept them in
their difference. It's what they have done in Canada. Look at how a strong
Quebec identity has been good for Canada." After all, Canada is a success,
and one reason we are a success is the contribution Quebecers have made.
2. Multiculturalism and bilingualism: a
threat?
While, for me, Canada's bilingualism and
multiculturalism are two of my country's most formidable strengths, they are not
always seen that way by people in your country. Just recently, several members
of the U.S. House of Representatives criticized their effects in Canada before
passing a bill that would make English the official language of the United
States. Virginia Republican Robert Goodlatte said multiculturalism and
bilingualism had unleashed:
"Ghetto mentalities. The destabilization of
Quebec. Reverse intolerance by immigrants for Canadian culture and institutions
and the devaluation of the very idea of a common nationality."
And, in 1995, Republican leadership contender Pat
Buchanan issued a press release saying that Americans should "look at
Canada" for evidence that "bilingualism and multiculturalism carry
within them viruses that are deeply dangerous."
I would argue that acceptance of what Canadian
political philosopher Charles Taylor, a Quebecer, calls "deep
diversity" is a fundamental part of what it means to be Canadian. Canada
stands as a counterpoint to those who argue, as the German theorist Herder did,
that "the most natural state is one nationality with one character."
Rather, Canadians exemplify the fact that identities can be nested, a concept
that has been explored by a number of Canadian political scientists.
Canada's linguistic duality has helped us become
a tolerant and open country. Having two linguistic windows on the world
strengthens us in numerous ways, social, cultural and economic.
Canada's commitment to multiculturalism helps
make our country more inclusive and cohesive. While the commentators I mentioned
a moment ago may feel it weakens Canada, a 1996 opinion poll shows that only 13%
of Canadians do not agree that "cultural diversity makes Canada
stronger." Canada was the first country in the world to adopt a
multiculturalism policy, and we are still a pacesetter on this front. Indeed, a
recent report by the UNESCO World Commission on Culture and Development cited
Canada's approach to multiculturalism as a model for other countries.
Conclusion
The reason why I'm very confident about the unity
of Canada is that most of my fellow Quebecers would agree with all that I have
said to you. They believe Canada is a success. They believe it's great to be
both a Quebecer and a Canadian. They are only attracted to the secessionist
option when secessionist leaders tell them that they could keep Canada in some
way even if they vote with them. When we convince them that there is no
contradiction between being both a Quebecer and a Canadian, the support for
secession will fall -- as it is doing.
The Government of Canada is making that point. So
are nine provinces with the Calgary Declaration, which emphasizes our shared
values as Canadians. And we are all working to improve this country by achieving
a zero deficit together and bringing down unemployment. We are working with the
provinces to build strong partnerships. And we are making sure that all
Canadians understand how difficult the break-up of our country would be.
So I want to close by saying again that I am
confident, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, as a Quebecer and as a
Canadian, that in the next millennium, Canada will remain a united, tolerant and
open country. We're going to make it. That is good news for Quebecers, for all
Canadians. And good news for you, our friends in the United States, who want
Canada to stay united not only for economic reasons, but as a strong and
confident neighbour and ally.
(1) For example Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez observed
that "Puerto Rico is not just a territory, it is a nation. [Forcing
statehood poses risks]. Just look at Quebec." (The Washington Post,
September 30, 1997); and the Mayor of San Juan, Sila Maria Calderon, queried
"Is Congress prepared to admit a Spanish-speaking people with a sense of
its nationality as fully developed as that of Quebec, and just as jealous of
protecting its language as Quebec?" (The Toronto Star, October 26, 1997).
Check against delivery.
|
