Government of Canada, Privy Council Office
Francais Contact Us Help Search Canada Site
What's New Site Map Reference Works Other PCO Sites Home
Subscribe
Archives - Press Room

Archives - Press Room


"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.  


  Printer-Friendly Version
Last Modified: 1997-11-21  Important Notices