|
"The true greatness of Canada"
Notes for an address before the
Chambre de commerce de la Rive-Sud
Lévis, Quebec
February 26, 1997
"Canada's greatest natural resources do not lie buried deep in the
ground, but in the skills and talents of those who walk upon it."
Paul Martin, Budget Speech, February 18, 1997
As a little guy from Quebec City -- Sillery, to be exact -- it's a pleasure for
me to meet today with the people who were my next-door neighbours for most of my
life.
I am proud to be speaking to you, businesspeople, who have helped to build
the South Shore, because you are builders. You want to build solid on solid, for
yourselves and your families, for workers and their families, for the whole
community to which you belong.
I'm sure that's one of the reasons that our businesspeople, while not all
federalists, of course, are generally more favourable to Canadian unity than the
average Quebecer. It's not just because their profession makes them more aware
of the economic advantages of Canada. It's also because they find it absurd to
think about building a new storey by destroying the house's foundation.
The Canadian house is so solid that the whole world envies us. We have built
it together, Quebecers and other Canadians, and we must not turn our backs on
it. The main strength of our federation is the way it enables varied populations
to act together in the same spirit of solidarity. Those who want all Canadians
to fit into one mould, like those who want Quebec to withdraw from a Canada they
perceive as too different, are wrong. The opposite is true: different
populations can accomplish great things when they decide to be together. The
true greatness of Canada is its human potential. That's what I want to talk
about today.
1. The success of Canada
"Canada is a success", it says on page 63 of the Quebec Liberal
Party's report entitled Quebec's Identity and Canadian Federalism: Recognition
and Interdependence. Why is it a success? Why has Confederation, this vast land
of pioneers, these villages and towns scattered across half a continent, grown
from its beginnings to become one of the greatest human achievements of our
century? As businesspeople, you know, as I do, the UN and World Bank indicators
that rank us in the forefront of 174 countries in different dimensions of
socio-economic activity: number one for the human development index, number five
for per-capita income, and number eight for life expectancy and, according to
the World Economic Forum, number eight for competitiveness as well.
Canada is one of the countries that are the best positioned to enter the 21st
century in good economic health, according to the OECD. "Experts no longer
hesitate to talk about the ‘Canadian miracle'", it said recently in the
French newspaper Libération: inflation under control, growth forecast at
between 3% and 4%, a stable dollar, interest rates at a 35-year low, public
finances in order, strong job creation, a record trade surplus. This is what
Canadians can do when they are together. As Finance Minister Paul Martin said in
his Budget speech on February 18: "The era of cuts is ending. The finances
of the nation are finally being brought under control. We are at the point where
we are now able to forge a new destiny for ourselves."
Over and above the economic indicators, we in Canada benefit from an enviable
quality of life. An international comparison by the Swiss organization Corporate
Resources Group, which ranked 118 world cities on the basis of 42 economic,
social and environmental indicators, placed Vancouver out in front in 2nd place,
Toronto in 4th, Montreal 7th and Calgary 12th. When I see that the highest
ranking American city, Boston, was only in 30th place, well, I am proud to be
Canadian. To me, Vancouver and Montreal, despite differences of language and
geographic distance, share the same ideal, and are truly part of the same great,
generous federation.
Quebec as it stands today, our majority Francophone society that stands out
in a majority Anglophone continent, is also part of Canada's success. Have you
ever thought that, if Canada had remained a French colony, Napoleon may well
have sold us to the United States, along with Louisiana? We would have been
dissolved in the melting pot. Of course, history is not made with "what
ifs", but the fact remains that it is in Canada, with the mutual assistance
of all Canadians, that Quebec society has developed, with its own character, its
language and its legal system. Over time, Canadian federalism has become one of
the most decentralized in the world. Because of its flexibility, the Quebec
government has been able to exercise a number of powers that the other provinces
have preferred to leave to the federal government, in fields as varied as
immigration, taxation, contributory pension plans, and international relations.
In return, we Quebecers have helped our fellow citizens in the other provinces
to find our common personality. From the very beginning, it was thanks to us, to
Georges-Étienne Cartier, that Canada had the good fortune of becoming a
federation. Such a large, diversified country would never have survived without
a federal system. Canada's success is Quebec's success, and vice versa.
Of course, we have difficulties, too many people unemployed, too much child
poverty. We must pool our strengths to deal with them more effectively. When we
compare ourselves with other countries in the world, however, even the richest,
we realize how enviable Canada's situation is. At the same time, we can see
clearly that nothing can be taken for granted, and that our future and our
children's future depend on the choices we make now.
One of our strengths, of course, is the abundance of natural resources we
have throughout our vast territory. Mining, energy, forestry, agriculture and
fisheries account for 15.9% of our collective wealth, and give us an
incalculable competitive edge. Our enviable standard of living stems in large
part from the richness of our soil, our subsoil and our oceans. Considering that
less than 0.03% of our landmass has been used so far by our mining industry, our
future rests in part on these incredible, still untapped reserves throughout
Canada's territory.
Look at Newfoundland, currently the poorest Canadian province. It may be an
Alberta of the East in the making, with one of the richest mineral deposits ever
discovered, at Voisey's Bay. Newfoundland has been helped by the other
provinces, and may soon be in a position to help them out in return.
Beyond our natural resources, however, our main wealth lies in our people. We
have the tremendous good fortune of being a decentralized federation showing
solidarity with its different populations, which know how to complement and
assist one another.
In the new economy, we must be able to combine the strengths of large
entities with the flexibility of smaller units. We must have both national
solidarity and regional autonomy. Well, federalism provides that very
combination. It provides the strength of large entities and the means for
regional autonomy. It is surely no accident that four of the five richest
countries in the world are federations: Canada, the United States, Germany, and
Switzerland.
The budget tabled by Canada's Finance Minister last week is a further
illustration of the advantages of our federation and its capacity for ongoing
renewal. Although it was the federal government's budget, the fact remains that
all the major measures it contained will be implemented in close cooperation
with the provincial governments. Let's take the example of the new child
benefit. The federal government will do what only it can do, namely, the
Canada-wide redistribution of equal assistance for all low-income families, a
base on which the provinces will be able to establish their own programs. Each
province will be free to put in place its own services to help families, and the
innovative approaches taken by each will inspire healthy emulation. This
initiative is in keeping with the Constitution, and was, indeed, requested from
us by the provinces before being skilfully negotiated by Pierre Pettigrew. That
is the essence of federalism, combining large-scale redistribution with local
delivery of services.
If I had the time, I'd describe all the other major budget initiatives, to
show how much they are inspired by the federative spirit. For example, there is
the renewal of the infrastructure program, where we are working together with
the provinces and municipalities; pension plan reform, which was negotiated with
the provinces and will put us in the forefront of industrialized countries in
this matter; the research and development innovation fund, in which all parties
-- universities, the provinces and the private sector -- are invited to work
together; transition funding to help the provinces finance pilot projects in the
health care field... But all that is a topic I'm saving for next Monday, in a
speech I'm giving to the Joliette Chamber of Commerce, entitled "The fourth
Martin budget and renewal of the federation".
I would, however, like to respond briefly to Mr. Bernard Landry, who has
criticized our budget by saying it is further proof of the so-called centralized
nature of our federation. Well, I'd like Mr. Landry to find me other federations
where the federal government's own spending accounts for only 38% of total
public spending (26% if we exclude debt servicing). When the federal government
helps the provinces to launch pilot projects in the health care field, it is not
interfering in hospital management. When it provides fiscal assistance to
students, it is not interfering in academic life. I challenge Mr. Landry to find
me a single line in the Constitution that denies us the right to launch such
good initiatives for people. I challenge him to find me a single federation
where the federal government is not involved in health, social policy, or
research and development.
Canada is not only a decentralized federation -- indeed, the most
decentralized, along with Switzerland -- but also a federation characterized by
strong solidarity and mutual assistance. Because they are together, Quebec and
the other members of the confederation strengthen one another on the
international scene, in a world where international agreements are exerting more
and more influence over our lives. Because Canada is united and respected, it
was possible to negotiate NAFTA in a way that was so advantageous to us. Because
Canada's Francophones and Anglophones are together, both groups are represented
in the Commonwealth and also in the Francophonie, and are part of the G7. We
Quebecers have as much access to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Council
as Western Canadians have to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. An
extraordinary synergy was created among businesspeople from all across the
country when Team Canada went to open new markets in Asia. Look at the Groupe
Sani-Mobile Inc. here in Lévis, which took part in the Team Canada mission to
South Asia and Southeast Asia in January 1996. In the opinion of the Group's
president and the former president of your Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Louis
Larivière, "the visit opened our eyes to the possibilities of doing
business there."
Again because we are together with other Canadians, we enjoy the advantages
of an economic union that is more close-knit than one might think in this era of
international free trade. Royal Bank Chief Economist John McCallum estimates
that Canada's provinces do fourteen times more trade with one another than they
do with American states of similar size and at comparable distances. Do you
really believe that Quebec businesses could easily do without a united Canada?
Of course not. Even the separatist leaders don't believe that. They want to have
their cake and eat it too, to have the Canadian economic union without Canada.
But the Canadian economic union didn't just fall from the sky: it is
indissociable from the Canadian political union. It is based on our common
institutions: the federal government, the Bank of Canada, the Canadian dollar, a
unified legal system, portable public health services, an employment insurance
system, an equalization system, and that thing we call national solidarity. In
the turbulent global economy, we need more than ever the reduced risks for our
businesses, the more stable currency and the freer flow of savings that our
union provides. On the basis of Fraser Institute studies, it can be concluded
that Canada is one of the best places in the world to do business. And that best
place in the world belongs to us, all of it.
In the same way, our bilingualism and our multiculturalism will be more than
ever strengths for the future. English and French are recognized languages of
the United Nations and NATO. French is the official language of no fewer than 33
countries, and English, 56. Some 800 million people in the world speak English,
and 180 million speak French. In this era of market globalization, Canada's
bilingual character facilitates trade ties with all these countries. Our
multiculturalism gives us fellow citizens who understand the culture of
countries we are trading with more and more. We Canadians have learned to
benefit from the synergy of cultures. We don't want to assimilate people, to be
a melting pot. And yet, nor do we want to transform our country into a set of
closed ghettoes. The Canadian ideal is the cohabitation and synergy of cultures.
Canadians know that the quest for what is true, just and good must be plural.
They know that by drawing from each culture, each individual, regional or
historical experience, we come closer to what is best in civilization. Canadians
know that equality must not be confused with uniformity.
Canada is seen worldwide as a universal model of tolerance, openness, and
respect for differences. For my part, I don't know if Canada is the best country
in the world, but I think it would be difficult to find a country other than
Canada where human beings have a better chance to be considered as human beings,
regardless of origin or religion. Mr. Bouchard may say that Canada is not a real
country, but for me, it is the most human country in the world.
To my mind, this spirt of openness is not only a good thing in itself, but
also an economic strength, in this era of globalization where populations are
increasingly intermingled. In the coming century, the happiest and most
prosperous countries will be those whose varied populations live in harmony and
with mutual assistance, rather than in mistrust and hate. Both cultural
assimilation and cultural separation will be seen less than ever as practical or
morally acceptable solutions. The synergy of cultures within a single state will
be a source of happiness and wealth. And the synergy of cultures has a name. Its
name is Canada.
2. Why keep Canada united?
Without a doubt, this is the ideal of openness and generosity we must offer
to those of our fellow Quebecers who feel obliged to choose between Quebec and
Canada. We must not only highlight the strength of the usual economic arguments,
which you know well, and indicate the economic studies explaining why separation
would be costly. We must do more than show them the fiscal assistance Quebec
receives as a province less wealthy than the Canadian average, or the numbers
proving that Quebec is already one of the most heavily indebted and taxed
provinces, and that current efforts at reduction would be even more painful
without Canadian unity. That's not enough to draw their attention to the costs
of the current political uncertainty in terms of lost investments and people.
It's a cost that even Mr. Bouchard can no longer hide. He admitted on February
20 that, "our creditors are looking at us in a funny way, because they
don't have a lot of confidence."
Let me add that it is not enough to highlight institutional arguments in
favour of Canadian unity, to the effect that our federation is already
decentralized -- increasingly so, to a much greater extent in fact than it was
at its inception in 1867 or even 30 years ago; that Quebec already enjoys a
level of autonomy that the other federated entities in the world would envy,
that Francophones and Quebecers are very well represented in the common
institutions of that federation; that the notion of status quo is meaningless,
since all federations change continually; that, since the February 1996 Speech
from the Throne, for example, Canada has been able to clarify federal-provincial
relations in fields as varied as mining, forestry, recreation, social housing,
tourism, the environment, the use of federal spending power, the labour market
and active employment measures; and that all these changes can be effected
without having to change one comma in the Constitution.
Indeed, it may be necessary to demonstrate to our fellow citizens tempted by
separatism that a unilateral declaration of independence by a provincial
government would not be supported in international law and would be illegal
under Canadian law; that an attempt at secession where there was confusion as to
the rules and no legal framework would not only pit Quebec against Canada, but,
above all, would deeply divide Quebecers among themselves.
Indeed, it may be necessary to stress again that the "partnership"
the separatist leaders talk about, a partnership that could be "written or
unwritten", Mr. Bouchard has said with a straight face (what is an
unwritten partnership?), is an illusion. We must explain that the rest of Canada
would have neither an interest in nor the desire to commit itself to a 50-50
structure that would give a partner one third its size a veto over entire
portions of its economic policy. We must show that the common institutions
envisaged in the partnership offer would, in any event, be much too weak to
maintain Canadian economic integration, which is currently guaranteed by a set
of strong institutions. We must explain that, without the support of the Bank of
Canada, and in the absence of common institutions that give confidence to
economic agents, the secessionist government would quickly lose the ability to
use the Canadian dollar.
In short, even though we must demonstrate the economic and political
advantages of a united Canada and the costs and uncertainties of secession, we
must, above all, highlight the universal value of the Canadian ideal of a strong
federation with diversified populations united by solidarity. No one should feel
obliged to choose between Quebec and Canada, let alone to force others to make
that choice. Together, the Quebec identity and the Canadian identity form a
remarkable complementarity. It is a mistake to see them as being opposed to each
other, especially at the dawn of a century in which plural identities will be a
strength more than ever before. Mr. Bouchard said recently that we Quebecers are
not Canadians. That one sentence summarizes the very essence of the PQ's plans:
to make us give Canada up. I say on the contrary that being born both a Quebecer
and a Canadian is a remarkable opportunity.
Quebecers ought to feel even less obliged to give Canada up because the
spirit of openness and tolerance of this great land stems precisely from the
need of the French and British to live together and accept each other, despite
many difficulties and injustices. That initial experience between the British
and the French which began in 1760, made them amenable in turn to better receive
their new fellow citizens from every corner of the globe. Today, we project our
values beyond our borders, by behaving as a generous country, as citizens of the
world. In the words of the late Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi,
"your greatest success is not the high economic level you have attained,
but the fact that the international community views Canada as a nation of
friends, working for international peace and harmony. Canadians have a broad and
opened-minded view of the world and of life. They have fought for peace and
justice for all humanity. They have made every effort, both as individuals and
through international organizations, to help those less fortunate than
themselves. Canadians have no colonial past to regret nor any of the obligations
of a ‘great power' to hinder them in their activities as human beings, in the
fullest sense of the word."
We Quebecers have contributed too strongly to Canada to give it up. Just
recently, it has been three politicians from Quebec in particular who have
pulled the federal government out of its financial quagmire: Jean Chrétien,
Paul Martin and Marcel Massé. The OECD forecasts that Canada will be number one
among G7 countries over the next two years not only in terms of balancing its
budget, but also in terms of economic and job growth. We owe this achievement,
of course, to the discipline shown by all Canadians, but, in particular, to the
determination of those three federal ministers from Quebec. They have enabled
all of Canada to benefit from Quebec know-how.
And today, the other little guy from Sillery, Pierre Pettigrew, is using his
renowned talents to lead the fight against child poverty. In return, I am in
contact on a daily basis with a justice minister from Ontario and an agriculture
minister from Saskatchewan, to name only two, who have helped Quebec society out
with wise policies. That's another example of Canadian synergy. Seven out of ten
provinces have succeeded in balancing their budget or are about to do so,
through mutual assistance and by relying on their own strengths. In the same
way, Quebec society will find its own path to balance its budget, bolstered by
its own culture and by Canadian mutual assistance. Incidentally, it would be
much easier for it do so without the political uncertainty that is so damaging
to its economy.
For his part, Mr. Bouchard tells us that he must achieve a zero deficit
within Canada, and only afterwards will we have the means to afford the
separatist gamble. Logically, then, he ought to thank Quebecers for voting NO
last time! Logic is not Mr. Bouchard's strong suit, however; if it were, he
would be advising us instead to separate right away, in order to achieve a zero
deficit, since he claims that the federation is the problem and sovereignty the
solution. Obviously, however, he doesn't dare make such a ridiculous proposal.
Everyone knows full well that we have the best chances to succeed within a union
of all Canadians, not in the tumult of secession.
The Bloc and the PQ never stop telling us that "the feds are to
blame", and "Quebec doesn't get its share". In the meantime,
between 1993-94 and 1998-99, the federal government will have cut its own
spending by 14.0%, compared with a 10.9% cut to transfers to the Government of
Quebec. Moreover, our province, which accounts for one quarter of the Canadian
population, receives 31% of federal spending on transfers, of which 46% is
equalization payments. That's not bad for a federal system that Mr. Landry
describes as "predatory"! And yet, I say that we Quebecers are capable
of improving our economy to the point where we will one day be able to make
equalization payments to the less wealthy provinces. Saskatchewan is almost
there. We can get there as well! And we will give just as generously as other
Canadians. After all, in the 1930s, our grandparents helped Alberta, which was
devastated by the Depression. Today, Alberta is helping us, but who knows what
the situation will be in 30 years' time? Why would we deprive ourselves of
Alberta's help now? Find me a single moral argument that could justify such
economic foolhardiness!
Secession would do more than weaken us economically. It would weaken the
strong ties of solidarity that unite Quebecers, beyond our linguistic and ethnic
differences, as well as those equally strong ties that unite Quebecers with
their fellow citizens in the Atlantic provinces, Ontario, Western Canada and
Northern Canada. Our values impel us, on the contrary, to strengthen those ties
of solidarity. I want to help my Aboriginal, Newfoundlander and Ontarian fellow
citizens to express their own way of being Canadian, and to build a better
future for their children. And I want other Canadians to help us strengthen
Quebec society, so that the union of our different cultures makes us better and
stronger. But to do that, we must remain together. We must move closer together,
rather than listen to the voices of division and ill will.
Conclusion
There are errors of perspective that we must stop making. We must stop seeing
the existence of a separatist movement as proof that Canada is a failure. The
fact is that Canada is a success, and will be an even greater success once
Quebecers and other Canadians have resolutely decided to stay together. We must
stop believing that citizens of French stock in Quebec can find pride and
solidarity only by putting up boundaries that would make us a majority within
our own state. The slogan ‘we want to be a majority' completely overlooks the
next century, which will be one of union, rather than separation. We must stop
seeing constitutional upheaval as the solution, when so many changes are being
or can be made without changing a word in the Constitution. We must also stop
measuring Quebec patriotism by the number of powers the Government of Quebec
claims from Ottawa, as if our federal government were a foreign power, tolerated
only when it brings us truck loads of money. We must stop seeing secession as an
opposition between Quebec and Canada, which would form two monolithic blocks;
above all, secession would divide our own society, and would pit Quebecers
against each other.
On December 8, 1996, BQ MP Suzanne Tremblay came up with this brilliant
statement: "Mr. Chrétien says that [Canada] is the best country in the
world, it has to stay the best country in the world. Well, we'll be the second
best country in the world..."
I'm sure you'll agree that's a very small ideal, which reveals a
misunderstanding of Canada's real strengths and of the destructive effects of
secession. I am not against secession because I believe that we Quebecers are
incapable of running our own independent state. I feel that we are called to a
greater ideal: that of continuing to improve the wonderful economic and social
success that is Canada; of fighting the scourges of unemployment and poverty
alongside our fellow citizens in the other provinces. Quebec and Canadian
solidarity complement each other wonderfully, and it would be not only
economically ridiculous, but, above all, morally wrong not to keep both of them,
for ourselves and our children. We must take on the formidable challenges of the
21st century together. That is the true greatness of Canada.
Check against delivery.
|
