|
Notes for an address to the Canadian Club of Winnipeg
Winnipeg, Manitoba
April 10, 1996
Mesdames et messieurs, ladies and gentlemen,
Introduction
The results of the October 30th referendum have taught us an important
lesson, one that we must never forget: we must never again take Canada for
granted.
As the Prime Minister said in his Address to the Nation on October 25th,
"The end of Canada will be nothing less than the end of a dream. [...]
Canada is not just any country. It is unique. It is the best country in the
world. Perhaps it is something we have come to take for granted, but we should
never, never let that happen."
Those of us who believe in Canada cannot accept that this country may have an
end. And yet it is possible.
Only 54,288 ballots separated the No from the Yes vote last October. Imagine
filling up the Maple Leaf Gardens or the new Molson Centre with unconvinced No
voters and asking only half of them to change their vote to a Yes vote.
That is all it would take to put Canada in troubled, unchartered and
dangerous waters for a long time.
That is why I thank the members of the Canadian Club for giving me the
opportunity to talk about something that all of us hold dearly: our country,
Canada.
Why Canada?
I believe that all Canadians must ask themselves the following two questions:
why is it so important to redouble our efforts to strengthen Canadian unity and
what do we do in order to achieve this?
Let me start with the first question: why Canada?
We all have our different reasons to share our country. This diversity of
beliefs is what, in the end, will make us stronger.
a) The economic argument
An obvious reason is the economic argument. Although I do not believe this is
the most important, it is a powerful and legitimate concern.
Many of you here in this room today are active businesspeople. You are in a
very good position to assess the considerable impact of a break-up, not only on
Quebec's economy, but on the country as a whole.
It would be irrational for the seventh largest industrialized economy in the
world, one of the strongest economic powers on earth, to compromise its future
by breaking up.
You know the strength and the potential of the Canadian economic union. You
know what we have achieved together, Manitobans and Canadians.
You know that, in the past thirty years, Canada has been number one among the
G-7 countries in terms of employment growth, and number two in terms of economic
growth. Canadians enjoy the sixth highest standard of living in the world in
terms of per capita income. (Economic survey, OECD, 1995).
The Canadian economic union is a powerhouse which benefits every province and
whose relevance is more than evident in the context of economic globalization.
Some people have argued that the Government of Canada should focus on the
economy alone and avoid our unity problems. They forget that these two issues
are intimately related.
Today, one cannot talk about the Canadian economy without talking about the
climate of uncertainty caused by the threat of Quebec's secession. The link
between the economic situation and the danger of secession is obvious. For
people who do business, here in Winnipeg, in Quebec, elsewhere in the country,
or outside the country, one would have to be naive not to see the negative
consequences of the secessionist threat.
In response to the urgent call by the Quebec business community, Mr. Bouchard
himself had to admit that there is indeed a link between political uncertainty
and economic instability. And this economic instability is not only present in
Quebec but is felt throughout the country.
There is a limit to what the Government and the private sector can do to
create jobs in this country in a climate of political uncertainty. The health of
our economy is, therefore, intimately related to our country's unity.
b) The non-economic argument
The economy is an important reason to preserve Canadian unity, but I don't
believe it is the most important. It is not only our economy and our wealth that
make Canadian unity so important to preserve.
It is not because our flag is the most attractive.
It is not because of the beauty and immensity of our land.
It is not because of our enviable standard of living, although the United
Nations consistently rates us the best in the world.
No, the reason I consider myself so fortunate to be Canadian is not because
of what is distinctive and particular to this country, but because of our
realization of universal human ideals.
Canada is the greatest example of what the world must become in terms of
tolerance, openness, and capacity for harmony between different communities.
As the Prime Minister said in his speech to the House on the 28th of
February, "...we have seen that when the world looks at Canada, what they
see is the future. Or rather the best hope for the future of the world.
Together, let's build that model of hope for the future of the world. Together,
let's build that model of hope and confidence. That model for all mankind".
We have built a country that recognizes and celebrates linguistic duality, a
country that recognizes the virtues of multiculturalism and the power of
diversity, a country that recognizes the supremacy of individual rights but also
the importance of protecting minorities.
These universal values that Canada has achieved over the years are vividly
expressed in Manitoba. Manitoba is indeed a microcosm of Canada, an illustration
of the strength of Canadian diversity. Manitoba is home to First Nations and
Metis, to English and French Canadians, to descendants of Ukrainian, German and
East European immigrants. Of course, Manitoba has had difficult chapters in its
history, but there is a sense of harmony, solidarity and interdependence here
that is at the heart of what it means to be a Canadian.
Our country is just too good to lose. Unfortunately, we Canadians are often
unaware that we are a model for all mankind. Because of the importance we attach
to these universal ideals, we hold ourselves to very high standards, more than
other countries.
Not very many countries would debate as frankly as we did over the past two
years the difficult balance between increasing trade and enhancing human rights
around the world.
No other country is probably as reluctant as we are to turn down requests for
asylum from refugees that come to us.
And when it comes to our reputation as good global citizens, we demand an
irreproachable conduct from those who serve our diplomatic and military
institutions.
We know that Canada is one of the rare countries in the world that has sent
its troops abroad only to defend peace.
Not many countries that have indigenous populations would recognize their
inherent right to self-government. In fact, yesterday, the Government started
the process of dismantling the Department of Indian Affairs here in Manitoba.
I can't tell you what the outcome of these debates will be, but I can tell
you that if there is one country in the world that can withstand such healthy
debates, it is Canada, because of these universal values that we are committed
to.
There are many reasons that explain why Canada has achieved this degree of
tolerance and such an openness to different cultures. But there is one that I
want to point out in particular, because it has been a powerful help: our
linguistic duality.
The institutional and legislative arrangements this reality has required,
starting with the Quebec Act of 1774, has made Canada more open to diversity in
all of its forms. In turn, our diversity has helped us to evolve and grow and
has made us more open to the challenges of the modern world and global
citizenship.
We all know that the relationship between the French and the English has not
always been easy in this country.
But we have learned since to respect one another and to work together.
La communauté franco-manitobaine est un parfait exemple de la diversité
canadienne.
Gabrielle Roy est née à quelques kilomètres d'ici, à St-Boniface. C'est
elle, une Franco-Manitobaine, qui a contribué à faire connaître les
littératures canadienne-française et québécoise modernes en Europe.
Je suis convaincu que nous trouverons dans notre histoire et en nous-mêmes
la volonté qui nous permettra d'accomplir notre tâche.
Notre histoire nous enseigne que la réconciliation n'est possible qu'en
acceptant de faire des compromis. Nous avons eu le courage de faire certains
compromis par le passé. Nous continuerons, j'en suis convaincu, à en faire
d'autres pour le bien du Canada entier.
Canada is a totally unique human achievement. Not just as Manitobans or
Quebecers, not just as the holders of milk quotas or investors in savings bonds,
but as human beings, we have no right to impose upon the world the end of this
Canadian dream.
Where do we go from here?
Let me now answer the second question I put forward earlier: what must we do
now to keep Canada united and make it stronger?
If we want our country to survive, we must do two important things. The
first thing we must do is to celebrate Canada and what it means to be Canadian,
as I have tried to do in my own way just now. Both ordinary citizens and
governments have a responsibility to do so. It is essential that we share the
different reasons that motivate us, politicians and citizens alike.
The second thing we must do is to achieve the right balance between political
leadership and public participation.
We need leadership - leadership that is open to listening, to hearing people
out. Canadians want to feel a sense of direction, but they also want to be
heard.
Politicians, especially, must act as Canadians first and be prepared to take
risks on behalf of Canada. I believe they must see beyond their provincial
borders, beyond their specific problems and work for their fellow Canadians.
Let me be clear: politicians alone will not find a solution to Canada's
problems. Politicians alone will not save Canada. Together, Canadians and their
politicians will.
Many Canadians have heard the call; grassroots unity groups are emerging in
every region of the country. Canadians from all walks of life have written to me
with suggestions on how to make our country even better. I encourage them to
continue and others to get involved.
In order to facilitate this national discussion, I can announce today that
Intergovernmental Affairs will have its own national unity web site on the
Internet next Monday. The address is: http://www.aia.gc.ca. If you can't figure
it out, ask your children!
The Government has a duty to set out the direction of the debate, and it has
fulfilled that duty. The Speech from the Throne spelled out two initiatives that
I want to discuss with you today.
The first is to clarify the roles of all levels of government to improve the
ability of the federation to better serve its citizens.
The second is to recognize Quebec's difference within Canada.
a) Rebalancing the federation
Before discussing how we can improve our federal system, perhaps it is worth
reflecting on why our federal system is so valuable in the first place.
Perhaps there is no better definition of federalism than the one offered by
the French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835. It is a definition
that aptly describes Canada: "The federal system was created with the
intention of combining the advantages which result from the magnitude and the
littleness of nations."
De Tocqueville noted that large nations had great advantages in trade and
commerce, and enjoyed greater security in times of crisis, while small nations
were likely to be more democratic with freer institutions and a sense of social
equality. Federalism is the best method ever invented of combining the strengths
of the large and the small nations in a single state.
Another way of expressing this, is as a balance between two principles: the
principle of solidarity, which holds that government should work for the common
good of all citizens and all regions, especially the least advantaged, and the
principle of subsidiarity, that government should respect the legitimate
autonomy of citizens, institutions, and local levels of government.
This balance between solidarity and subsidiarity -- or autonomy -- means that
as citizens and as regions within Canada we are both independent and
interdependent.
Our federalism in Canada has given concrete practical expression to these
ideals of solidarity and autonomy.
On the one hand, we have created a network of social programs and a system of
equalization payments to ensure that all citizens enjoy a comparable level of
well-being. We have even expressed this in section 36 of the Constitution Act,
1982, which commits governments to equal opportunity for all Canadians,
equalization between regions, and comparable social services throughout Canada.
This is as strong a commitment to social solidarity as is found anywhere in the
world.
On the other hand, our constitutional division of powers, giving exclusive
authority over such vital areas as health, education, natural resources, and
social welfare to the provinces expresses our commitment to a powerful local
autonomy. In fact, in terms of both formal powers and taxing and spending
authority, Canadian provinces are in many ways stronger than American states,
German Länder, or even Swiss cantons. This is as great a level of local
autonomy as is found anywhere on earth.
All over the world, we see countries and international bodies like the
European Union seeking to balance solidarity and autonomy, independence and
interdependence. Canadian federalism has much to teach the rest of the world
about how to balance these principles, and our federalism will help us to adapt
to new global challenges which will require this balance more than ever.
Now in this time of difficult testing for national unity, we can draw on our
experiences of solidarity and autonomy to make the Canadian federation work even
better, based on these principles.
We must find ways to make the Canadian federation more harmonious and lessen
the number of disputes between the provincial and federal governments.
And that is exactly what the Government is suggesting in the Speech from the
Throne.
Let me concentrate on the four most important unity initiatives announced by
the Government.
First, the federal government has limited its spending power. Limiting the
federal government's spending power has been a long-standing demand of most
provinces. It is the first time that the federal government has offered such a
limit on its powers outside the context of formal constitutional negotiations.
This measure will make the Canadian federation more harmonious. We will work by
mutual consent, not by unilateral action.
Second, in terms of existing programs, we will be exploring with the
provinces new and cooperative ways of working together while maintaining and
securing national standards. Once again we will operate on the basis of mutual
consent. By working in such a way, we will fulfill our obligation to maintain
solidarity while respecting provincial autonomy. After all, Manitoba is not
obliged to follow the same road as Quebec or Ontario. Every province must be
able to decide its own priorities.
Third, we are committed to establishing clearer lines of responsibility
between different levels of government. Building for the future is far easier to
accomplish when there is greater clarity about who does what. That is why we are
also looking at useless overlap and duplication.
That is why the federal government will withdraw itself from fields of
activity that are more appropriately the responsibility of provinces, such as
forestry, mining, recreation and, above all, labour-market training.
Fourth, the federal government will exercise its leadership to promote
Canada's economic union by taking measures to promote greater labour mobility
and interprovincial free trade. The province of Manitoba has been very committed
to stronger and freer interprovincial trade and Minister Jim Downey co-chaired
the negotiations on the Interprovincial Free Trade Agreement with federal
Industry Minister John Manley.
Thanks to all these initiatives, we will not only strengthen Canadian
solidarity but we will also increase the already high degree of autonomy enjoyed
by the provinces.
This will allow our governments to better serve Canadians and give them more
reasons to stay in Canada.
In addition to measures to increase efficiency and harmony in the federation
to the benefit of all Canadians, we also know that Quebecers have specific
concerns about language and culture that must be addressed. This brings me to
the subject of the next initiative set out in the Speech from the Throne: the
recognition of Quebec's difference within Canada.
b) Recognition of Quebec's difference
Premier Filmon has indicated his support for a formal recognition of Quebec's
distinctiveness. To quote what he said on November 2nd: "We supported the
distinct society provision that was part of the Charlottetown Accord [...] and
in that context I believe that Manitoba still supports it" (CBC Newsworld,
Politics, 17h). Nevertheless, we all know that the distinct society concept has
not been popular with all Canadians.
Countless polls tell us that a constitutional distinct society clause does
not garner a majority of support outside the province of Quebec, especially in
the West.
Many Quebecers see in these results a rejection by the rest of Canada of
their difference. This feeling of rejection is a powerful reason for many of
them to support the separatist cause.
But the truth is that the majority of Canadians outside Quebec are willing to
recognize and accept the uniqueness of Quebec within Canada.
Indeed, a recent CROP/Environics poll conducted for the CBC/SRC shows that
84% of Canadians outside Quebec consider Quebec to be an essential component of
Canada's identity (March 1996).
Canadians recognize the reality of Quebec's difference, but are unsure of the
legal implications of putting this recognition in the Constitution.
Therefore, it is very important to explain what a formal recognition of
Quebec's difference within Canada implies and what it would not imply.
It would mean that in the grey areas of the Constitution, those areas where
the rules require interpretation, the Supreme Court will take into account the
fact that Quebec is different in such areas as language, culture and civil law.
While this would be a useful clarification, it would not change the
distribution of powers within the Constitution. Nor would it grant Quebec
special status or privileges.
All Canadian provinces are obviously different from one another. Each has its
own history, symbols and institutions. But Quebec is different in a fundamental
way that requires specific attention, and should be recognized as such.
The recognition of Quebec is not a device to change the balance of power, to
change the very nature of Canada. In fact, I believe it will help us define even
more the very nature of Canada.
Other multilingual democracies like Switzerland and Belgium have these kinds
of arrangements. They give the minority language community the ability to feel
secure and to make a more positive contribution to the country.
It is obvious that language is central in shaping a whole society. Just
compare the interprovincial mobility of Francophone Quebecers with that of other
Canadians and you will see this. 88% of Quebecers were born in Quebec. Compare
this to Manitoba where 73% of the population was born in the province, or
Ontario where the number drops to 64% of the population. Year after year, Quebec
continues to have the lowest interprovincial migration rate.
Imagine having to move your family to Chicoutimi, a 99% French-speaking city.
Imagine what this would mean for your children's education, for meeting and
communicating with new neighbours, making new friends and adapting to the
community.
It would certainly be more demanding than moving to Medicine Hat.
Or imagine how you would feel if Manitoba was the only English-speaking
community in a French-speaking North America, and if French was the
international language of business and media. Wouldn't a simple recognition of
Manitoba's English-speaking identity be the least you would want from the rest
of Canada?
The recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness would be a great example of the
Canadian values of openness and tolerance that we all cherish. It will give
Quebecers the confidence to make a full and enthusiastic contribution to our
federation.
I am convinced that Canadians are prepared to acknowledge in their hearts
what they already know to be true in their minds - that Quebec has been, and
must remain within Canada, a vibrant French-speaking society.
Conclusion
Reconciliation and solidarity must guide us in our quest for a strong, modern
and united Canada. We must not take our country for granted.
We can and will make the changes that will lead us to an even better country,
a Canada where all Canadians will feel at home from coast to coast to coast.
We do not have the right to fail. For if we fail, our legacy to our children
and to the rest of the world will be the end of the Canadian dream.
.Check against delivery.
|
