Archives - Press Room

"SOCIAL UNION: CANADIANS HELPING CANADIANS"

NOTES FOR AN ADRESS TO
THE WOMEN'S CANADIAN CLUB OF TORONTO

TORONTO, ONTARIO

DECEMBER 10, 1998

Social union may be a new expression, but the Canadian social union definitely exists. We are not in the process of creating the social union, but of improving it. After describing just what the social union is and the nature of the social union negotiations by our governments, I’ll look at the links between these negotiations and our federal system on the one hand and our problem of national unity on the other.

Indeed, two fears have been clearly expressed recently in connection with the negotiations, particularly in Ontario. You may share those fears yourselves. Let us see if I can alleviate them.

Many people are afraid that the quality of our social programs and our health system will be sacrificed, 1) to buy peace with the provinces, or 2) to accommodate the separatists. I can assure you that this will not happen. Those fears are unfounded. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his government have but a single objective: to find a decision-making framework that is most likely to produce better social and health policies for all Canadians, wherever they live in Canada. And by focussing exclusively on the quality of services to Canadians, we will improve our federation and strengthen the unity of our country.

A women’s association such as yours is the perfect venue to talk about the social union currently being negotiated in Canada. A number of studies show that women tend to have more pronounced social concerns than men do. This is because women are more intelligent, of course...but mostly, because they are the ones who bear the brunt of the shortcomings in our social and health policies.

The social union is Canadians helping Canadians; one of the best principles of caring ever invented by human beings. It encompasses the aspects of caring most essential to Canadians: health, social protection, equality of opportunity.

Wherever we live in Canada, we want to have access to high-quality health care services for all, regardless of personal income; we want to receive the help we need if we lose our job or become unable to work because of a disability; we want our young people to pursue their studies under good conditions; and we want pension plans and seniors’ benefits that enable us to preserve our quality of life in our old age. These programs and services make up what we call the social union.

All industrialized societies launched new social programs after the end of the Second World War, but few have been as successful as we have. According to a 1997 study by the British Economist Intelligence Unit, for example, Canada ranked fourth in the world in terms of the health of its population, and second in terms of its medical practices. According to the World Economic Forum, Canada ranks first among 53 countries in terms of post-secondary enrolment. More generally, our government practices seem to be of high quality when compared with other countries. A study on government quality recently released by an American research centre, the National Bureau of Economic Research, ranked Canada fifth among 150 countries.

Nevertheless, according to a recent UN report, governments in Canada are not doing enough for our most disadvantaged citizens. And you know of our country’s troubling child poverty problem. Our social union has serious shortcomings, and there is much that needs to be done. The time has come to review how we do things, now that governments have put their public finances in better order and hope to be able to reinvest in health and social services.

And this brings us to the federal-provincial negotiations now under way. At the express invitation of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Saskatchewan, the country’s first ministers and territorial leaders agreed last December 12 to try to improve the Canadian social union. They assigned this mandate to their ministers. The negotiations are being co-chaired by my colleague Anne McLellan, chair of the federal Cabinet Committee on Social Union, and Bernie Wiens, Saskatchewan’s Intergovernmental Affairs Minister.

The objective of these negotiations is for governments to improve the Canadian social union together. We need to find the most appropriate decision-making framework for helping governments to help Canadians.

To improve our social union, we need to build on the strengths of our federation. Neither the federal government nor the provincial governments can succeed on their own. Governments must work together more effectively while respecting their constitutional powers and jurisdictions. That is why we have a federation.

By the way, let’s ask ourselves: why do we have a federation? My answer: to pursue common objectives within the diversity of experiences.

Unitary countries set common objectives for themselves, but they cannot draw on the rich diversity of experiences to the same extent as federations. Ten egoistic republics north of the United States might try out many different things, but they would not have anywhere near the same capacity to pursue common objectives and help one another as our federation has.

We have strong provinces that are capable of trying out their own solutions. And we have a strong federal government that can help extend the most valuable provincial experiences to all Canadians. In this way, we Canadians have successfully developed a health system that is infinitely more humane than that of the United States. And in this way, more recently, the National Child Benefit was developed, a new federal-provincial initiative to reverse the upward trend in child poverty.

To make our social union even better, we need to enhance our capacity to identify common objectives and try out different solutions. We need to assess the merits of these different solutions more effectively, and to compare them with one another more systematically through healthy emulation.

It is only natural that the provinces are concerned in particular with the diversity of their experiences, that is, with their own autonomy, while keeping in mind the need to have common objectives within Canada.

Conversely, it is only natural that the federal government, as the government elected by all Canadians, be concerned in particular with common objectives, while keeping in mind the country’s diversity.

This natural difference of perspective between the two orders of government can create friction between them, especially in a context of budgetary austerity. These tensions make for headaches for politicians and bureaucrats, good copy for journalists, and ultimately, through synergy, better services for citizens.

I am telling you all of this because this is precisely what is happening with the current negotiations on the social union.

The first ministers gave their ministers a mandate to negotiate on December 12, 1997. The provinces presented a joint position on June 18, 1998. The federal government released its own proposal one month later, on July 16. The Premier of Quebec joined the discussions on August 7.

Since that time, we have been discussing the two proposals together: the one by the provinces and the one by the federal government. Both proposals are being examined. I won’t disguise the fact that the provinces are pushing for a greater capacity to try out their own solutions, and it is legitimate for them to do so. For its part, the federal government will not sign anything that does not consolidate the common objectives we already have, such as those set out in the Canada Health Act, and we also want to expand our capacity to have other objectives, including equal opportunity and mobility of all Canadians throughout the country. The federal government also insists that government action throughout the country must be more transparent and more accountable to the public.

The purpose of the negotiations is not to conclude an unwieldy compromise between the two perspectives, but rather to draw on the best of each, so that we can enhance our capacity both to have common objectives and to try out different solutions. It would be easy to weaken one order of government, to the advantage of the other. But it requires much more imagination to strengthen both orders of government in their legitimate roles, and in particular, to enhance their capacity for joint action.

We need to have imagination, but we also need to have faith in this country. This brings me to my final topic: the link between these social union negotiations and Canadian unity.

A federation obliges governments of different political stripes to work together. It is almost impossible, for example, to have 13 Liberal governments - federal, provincial and territorial - in Canada all at the same time. Coexistence of governments with different party allegiances is inevitable. This requires both judgment and open-mindedness, on the part of governments and citizens alike.

For example, let’s look at the current political situation in your province. There are many people in Ontario who reproach the current Conservative government for lacking a social conscience. It is not my role to comment on whether or not that reproach is justified, at least not as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who must work with that government. But those men and women who do believe that reproach is justified may well be inclined to hope that the current social union negotiations will strengthen the role of the federal government and weaken the Ontario government. In aiming to improve a social union, however, we need to take a more long-term approach. You can’t rule out the possibility that a very conservative government may one day take power in Ottawa, at the same time as a government very open to social policies is in power at Queen’s Park. Many people would then be very happy to count on a provincial government with sufficient jurisdictional clout to counterbalance the neo-conservatism in Ottawa.

This is why the negotiations under way to improve our social union must be above partisanship. It becomes more difficult, however, when one of the governments sitting at the table has the official objective, as set out in the first article of its political platform, not of improving the federation, but of breaking it up.

That government has just been re-elected by Quebecers. As a result, the other governments have a constitutional responsibility to work with it, provided that those efforts are to improve Canada. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made a public commitment to do so on the same night that Mr. Bouchard’s government was re-elected.

Improving Canada means seeking better policies for Canadians. It doesn’t mean giving in to the so-called "politics of booty".

This expression, the search for booty, which dates back to former Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis, was dusted off and brandished in their own way by the separatist leaders in the Quebec election campaign. Former Premier Jacques Parizeau summed it up perfectly in a speech about the social union negotiations:

[Translation]

"We can’t lose. In that sense, there’s no contradiction between an intelligent strategy to get something out of Ottawa, or pulling off a hold-up in Ottawa, as the case may be, and preparing for a referendum on sovereignty." (Speech in Trois-Rivières, November 26,1998)

 

Let me sum up this separatist-style politics of booty in another way. It consists of demanding something from the federal government: more power, more money. If the federal government says no, then you return to Quebecers and you tell them: You see how unyielding and unfair this federation is to you, we’ve got to get out! If the federal government says yes, the message to Quebecers becomes: You see the bargaining power you get by electing separatists, so imagine the power you’d have if you voted Yes in a referendum; we’d go get you that wonderful partnership we’ve promised you.

So how does one thwart this logic of booty? Quite simply, by refusing to play the game. By stating very clearly that one has no intention of giving in to this kind of blackmail. By placing the improvement of services for citizens above all other considerations, while respecting the constitutional jurisdictions and powers of each level of government. And by never losing sight of the fact that it is through developing better health policies, better social, economic and environmental policies, that we will strengthen the desire of Quebecers and other Canadians to stay together.

We won’t improve this social union by trying to accommodate the separatists or those who might be tempted to vote for them. We will improve it by enhancing our capacity to pursue common objectives within the diversity of experiences. The results of our efforts will benefit Canadians and thereby strengthen Canadian unity. This is the link between the social union and the unity of our country.

There was a lot of talk about booty during the Quebec election campaign. But that campaign is now over. Together, we have a country to improve, and it is with that perspective that the Government of Canada is determined, I repeat, to work with the Government of Quebec as it does with every elected government in the country.

But "can you promise us that the social union negotiations have nothing to do with Quebec" some Ontarian columnists ask me. I’m afraid I can’t make such a promise, because it is obvious that these negotiations have everything to do with Quebec, just as they have everything to do with Ontario and the other regions of Canada.

Just because an idea comes from Quebec doesn’t mean that it should automatically be considered as booty politics or separatist blackmail. Quebec society is a hotbed of very interesting ideas about social policy. The other provinces will better realize this as we improve the exchange of information, the assessment of results and accountability to the public, which are all objectives of the current negotiations.

It is certain that Quebecers, because of the unique nature of their society, will always exert a certain pressure within the federation for provincial autonomy. In doing so, they provide a useful counterbalance to other forces in the country which, if left unchecked, would move us toward a uniformity likely to erode the provinces’ capacity to innovate in trying out their own solutions.

But there also exists in Quebec a tradition of openness to the other Canadians, a desire for joint action to achieve shared objectives. Too often, unfortunately, this desire has been smothered by the logic of booty and separatist blackmail.

An improved social union will never be a step toward separation. It will give Quebecers the opportunity to try out their own social and health policies, with the help of all Canadians, by pursuing common objectives with them.

The social union is neither social disunion nor social uniformity. It is all of the social and health policies by which Canadians help each other in the diversity of their experiences.

The negotiations under way to improve our social union are progressing well. It would be unfortunate, however, if this round were to fail, but that would not make Canada unacceptable to Quebecers, anymore than to other Canadians. Canada is already more than acceptable. It is infinitely preferable to the secessionist gambit, and is seen as such by the vast majority of Quebecers.

But Canada must always be improved, be it through a new social union framework or through other means. And together, without ulterior motives, without separatist blackmail, without taking dogmatic positions in favour of the provinces or the federal government, by resisting prefabricated slogans that close minds and by remaining steadfast in our efforts to help all of our fellow Canadians, men and women alike, we will make our country better able to take on the daunting and exhilarating challenges of the coming century.

Check against delivery.