|
"BEYOND PLAN A AND PLAN B:
TWO DEBATES ON CANADIAN UNITY"
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS
AT THE MONTREAL PRESS CLUB
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
DECEMBER 3, 1997
Ladies and gentlemen of the media, thank you for this opportunity to summarize
how the Government of Canada views the Canadian unity issue. I believe it is
important this evening that we deal with the substance of the debate together,
beyond the notions of Plan A and Plan B. With Mr. Bouchard, those two notions
have become prefabricated slogans, impediments to serious reflection. You know
the extent to which "Plan B" is synonymous with "attacks"
against Quebec in the incantations of the PQ leader.
And because he and his ministers are short on
arguments, they prefer to put down those who speak up. That's the response they
have given to my letters.
So let's go beyond Plan A and Plan B. The truth
is that the many questions raised by Canadian unity and Quebec's future can be
classified into two debates. The first deals with the comparative advantages of
a united Canada and an independent Quebec. The second deals with the procedure
through which Quebec could be transformed into an independent state. So, 1) why
Canadian unity; 2) how that unity could cease to exist. These are two different
but related debates, because how secession would be attempted would have effects
on the consequences of secession.
It would thus be a mistake to see those two
debates as contradictory, opposed to each other, Plan A and Plan B. Both are
necessary and must be advanced together, in the same spirit of clarification.
1. Why Quebec ought to stay in Canada
Quebecers ought to stay in Canada because the
country they have built with other Canadians is indisputably a success in the
world. And Quebecers and other Canadians owe that success to their being
together. That, in its most simple form, is the argument that the Government of
Canada is making to Quebecers and all Canadians.
And yet, we are aware that the argument of
Canada's success, however true, is not enough. We must also win the battle of
identity. Most yes supporters are prepared to admit that Canada is a success.
But they see sovereigntism as a way to affirm their Quebec identity. Convincing
them that they don't have to choose between Quebec and Canada is undoubtedly the
most important issue.
Let us begin with the tangible achievements of
Quebec within a united Canada. From that viewpoint, there is an error in
perspective that must be corrected, which depicts the existence of a separatist
movement as proof that Canada is a failure. That false perspective leads some
people to conclude that Quebec ought to leave Canada, while others believe that
Canada must have one "last chance" to reform itself from stem to stern
so that it finally becomes acceptable to Quebecers.
I believe that the very opposite is true. I feel
that the Canada that Quebecers have achieved with other Canadians is a success
that will be even more striking when the separatist ideology is no longer
harming our cohesion. The changes we are making are not designed to make Canada
acceptable: it already is. They are designed to improve a country that is an
overall success but is far from perfect. When governments put public finances
back in order, strengthen the economy, launch new initiatives to combat child
poverty, harmonize federal legislation with the Civil Code, or amend the
Constitution with respect to education, they are not making an already
acceptable country acceptable, they are making it better.
This is not an argument for the status quo. This
notion of status quo is meaningless. A federation is continually evolving, and
it must be ensured that it does so in the best interests of citizens. Progress
has been made in the past two years, and the first ministers will continue that
impetus at their meeting on December 11 and 12, which will deal with the social
union.
Commenting on that upcoming first ministers'
meeting, Mr. Bouchard had this to say on Saturday to his supporters:
"I've seen the agenda. They want to talk
primarily about social policy. That's funny, because according to the
Constitution, social policy is our jurisdiction."
It is certainly misinterpreting the Constitution
to say that the Government of Canada has no role whatsoever in social and health
matters. Mr. Bouchard would be quite unable to find a single modern federation
where the federal government is not involved in either social policy or health.
Mr. Bourassa didn't have the same ideas on those matters as Mr. Trudeau, but he
never denied that the federal government had a role to play. As far back as
1970, he called for "a primary responsibility" for the provinces in
the area of social policy and acknowledged "the key role of the federal
government in ensuring an acceptable standard of living for all Canadians."
[Translation]
Similarly, today, there are differences in
approach among Messrs. Chrétien, Romanow, Klein and Johnson, but those
differences are inevitable, and often healthy in the quest for better policies
for citizens.
Mr. Bouchard and his ministers tell us that this
federation is paralysed by endless conflicts between the federal government, the
Quebec government and the other provincial governments. In fact, such tensions
exist in all federations. Difficulties must not overshadow successes. Let's take
the example of job training. As long as that issue was being disputed, many saw
it as proof that the Canadian federation was irreparably dysfunctional. Now that
a solution has been negotiated by Mr. Pettigrew and Ms. Harel, people have no
more to say about it, except to repeat Mr. Bouchard's comment that it took 31
years to see any movement. That statement is too often accepted at face value,
including by federalists. Canada obviously didn't sit on its hands for 31 years
before taking an interest in job training. Federal-provincial agreements have
been signed which, while perhaps not perfect, could not have been all that bad,
since Canada is second in the world in terms of labour force competitiveness,
according to the most recent index of the International Institute for Management
Development (IMD).
In short, Quebec society and Canada form a whole
which works well and which has every interest in staying together. There are
abundant arguments to convince more and more of our fellow citizens to turn away
from the independence parties. Those arguments must be highlighted by our
actions and our words. All my colleagues in the Chrétien government are active
on that front, because Canadian unity affects all aspects of our collective life
and must not be relegated to a dry discussion on the Constitution.
That being said, there is another battle to be
fought, the battle of identity. Many Quebecers are well aware that Canada is a
success, but they don't feel at ease in a country where most of the inhabitants
don't speak their language and don't have the same cultural references. That
uneasiness with identity is a widespread phenomenon in this global world at the
dawn of the next century.
We can already tell them that French is not
threatened in Quebec. In point of fact, Quebec has never been as French as it is
now, with 94% of its population able to speak the language. Outside Quebec, we
must not throw in the towel: Francophones are better educated than before and
enjoy more rights, cultural resources and their own institutions. Separation
would mean "they'll have a hard time", as Jacques Parizeau admitted on
November 25 in Edmonton.
But identity is not just about insecurity. Above
all, it is about self-affirmation. That is the main issue, in my opinion. We
Quebecers are also Canadians. And we are both Quebecers and Canadians not just
because we understand that is in our best interests. It is because those two
identities are a part of us, and we are proud of them. We should therefore vote
accordingly. It isn't normal that 49% of Quebecers voted YES in the last
referendum, when a poll only a few months before indicated that 80% (including
61% of YES supporters) were "proud to be both Quebecers and
Canadians." It is not normal for YES support to remain above 40% when
recent polls indicate that a much smaller proportion of Quebecers define
themselves as Quebecers rather than as Quebecers and Canadians (25% according to
CROP, February 1996; 17% according to EKOS, March 1997).
We must succeed in clarifying this question of
identity at all costs. The independence project not only seeks to take Quebec
out of Canada. It also seeks to take Canada out of Quebec, to strip us of our
Canadian identity. We would still be Quebecers, but we would no longer be
Canadians.
We are a people, Mr. Bouchard thunders day after
day. We can easily agree that Quebecers are a people. It's simply difficult to
deny that the Cree are a people, or that Canadians are a people. It's all a
matter of definitions: sociological, ethnic, political. The real question is
whether we are a people in the exclusive sense given to the word used by the PQ,
whereby we would be Quebecers but not Canadians.
Of course we are Canadians. We have put too much
into this country to take ourselves out of it. Sure, it would be desirable for
our own identity to be given greater recognition. But Quebec is currently
recognized as a Canadian province, and its provincial government occupies, more
completely than the other provincial governments, the extensive areas of
jurisdiction it has under the Constitution. The rights of the French language
are recognized more than ever since the Constitution Act, 1982. The specificity
of Quebec society is taken into account in court rulings, as recognized by
former Supreme Court Chief Justice Brian Dickson. In my opinion, there is not a
single judgment based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that went
against the interests of Quebec society. The federal government has initiated an
unprecedented harmonization of its legislation with Quebec's Civil Code, so that
federal institutions speak the legal language of Quebecers and our country gets
the greatest benefit from its bijuralism. The Constitution will probably soon be
amended so that school boards can be organized along lines more in keeping with
the specificity of modern Quebec.
It would be desirable, in addition, for Quebec to
be recognized as a society, a more inclusive term than people. You know that
since the Calgary Declaration, an initiative was launched to recognize the
unique character of Quebec society, which would go hand in hand with equality of
status of the provinces, in accordance with the principle that equality is not
synonymous with uniformity. That would be a great addition. But there again,
that addition would not make Canada acceptable: it is already an indisputable
success.
There is no reason to deprive ourselves of
Canada. And the Government of Canada's plan is to prove that there is no reason.
2. How secession could be effected
"It is up to the Quebec people to decide its
future, not nine judges," Mr. Bouchard roars. Who is saying otherwise? The
Government of Canada has obviously not asked the Supreme Court to decide on the
merit of secession. It has asked it whether Mr. Bouchard and his government, by
virtue of their majority in the National Assembly, would have the right to
effect secession unilaterally. You understand how important it is for the
Government of Canada that Mr. Bouchard's distorted description of the Supreme
Court reference not become the standard language of the media.
The issue before the Court is not Quebec's right
to self-determination. It is the Bouchard government's claim that it can effect
independence unilaterally. That distinction, which is too often overlooked, is
crucial. Allow me to explain why.
We Quebecers may one day want to stop being
Canadians. That would be a grave error in my opinion, but I do not deny that it
is a possibility, although I do believe it is improbable. In fact, no one can or
should deny that this is a possibility. We in Canada accept secession as a
possibility not because we are forced to do so by international law. In reality,
secession is not a right in democracy. It is a right only for peoples in a
colonial situation or in cases of extreme violation of human rights. That, at
least, is the opinion the Government of Canada shares with the vast majority of
experts. We shall see what the Supreme Court thinks about it.
We accept secession as a possibility because we
know that our country would not be the same if it were not based on the
voluntary adhesion of all its components. I do not know of a single major
political party in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada that wants to detain us against
our will.
In practice, secession would mean that we
Quebecers would give up Canada to make Quebec an independent state. Federal
institutions would no longer be operative in Quebec's territory.
Well, that is the essential point: the Government
of Canada is also a government of Quebecers. It would no longer be so after
secession. It therefore has a duty to us not to withdraw from Quebec's territory
without the assurance that this is very clearly what we want: Canada's
withdrawal from Quebec.
Would it have had that assurance the last time if
30,000 more voters had voted YES instead of NO? No one will ever know what would
have happened. It is likely, however, that things would have turned out badly,
precisely because the Parizeau government would have wanted to effect secession
without the firm support of the population.
Research by Professor Maurice Pinard has gauged
the extent to which the question chosen by the PQ government artificially
swelled support for the YES side. The question referred to a
"partnership" that the chief negotiator, Mr. Bouchard, admitted on
June 19 was only "bare bones". Mr. Bouchard should have told us at the
time of the referendum that he was asking us to vote for "bare bones".
He has promised us since then that his party would put some meat on those bones.
We'll have a long wait, because the more they will want to flesh out their
partnership, the more they will be divided among themselves, and the more we
will see that this is something much flimsier than bare bones: it is a pipe
dream. It needs saying and it needs repeating: one quarter of a population could
never break up a country and then come back in force and count for 50% in common
institutions. That is an absurd project.
Messrs. Bouchard and Parizeau did not tell us of
the sketchy nature of their partnership during the referendum campaign. They hid
from us their secret plan, the Plan O (for obligations, the French word for
bonds), which sought to use $19 billion of our savings bonds in the vain hope of
calming the markets after a YES vote. They said nothing about Mr. Parizeau's
"big gamble" with which he planned to force the agenda and put
pressure on France, which would put pressure on the United States: a bogus plan.
So Mr. Parizeau knew that international recognition is something that is very
hard to come by. And yet, he told us just the opposite.
Three referenda were held in northern Quebec in
the days preceding the vote on October 30. Those populations asked to stay
Canadian, at a rate of over 95%. Mr. Parizeau would no doubt have said that
those referenda did not accord any legal rights, because he's said so since then
(La Presse, p. B1 1997-05-22). Legality! is the very word he would have used.
Wasn't there a judgment by the Quebec Superior Court that raised various
questions about the legality of the project he intended to implement following a
referendum result in his favour? It is hard to guess how many Quebecers would
have wanted to contest the illegal procedure by which Mr. Parizeau would have
tried to deprive them of Canada, but the post-referendum difficulties would have
swelled their ranks. So what would have happened if support for
"sovereignty-partnership" had slipped well below 50% in the polls?
I am afraid that the PQ government would have
reacted as it is reacting today to the Supreme Court reference. It would have
played on emotions, trumped up indignation, looking for a "backlash"
and thus making things even more confused and uncertain.
The secession debate is too often described as
opposing Canada and Quebec, viewed as two monolithic blocks. Mr. Bouchard says
that it is "Quebec", "Quebec democracy", "the Quebec
people" that are attacked by the Supreme Court reference. And so we're all
boiled down to a single being (or a single bloc). In fact, his attempt at
unilateral secession would first and foremost divide us Quebecers among
ourselves. Because the surest way of dividing Quebecers is to ask them to give
up Canada. Mr. Bouchard would be forcing seven million people to overcome a
profound disagreement without a precise legal framework in which to do so. You
don't do that in a democracy.
Those who love Quebec do not want to see it
plunged into such a situation. The way in which our secessionist leaders want to
effect secession is completely irresponsible.
Democracy and the rule of law go hand in hand.
Mr. Bouchard says that accession to sovereignty is a purely political matter,
but he keeps inventing rules of law to justify the procedure he intends to
follow. In fact, there are no "purely political" questions in a
democracy. The law is an essential ingredient in the political life of a
democracy; otherwise, things slide into anarchy. The PQ government has no right
to proclaim itself to be the government of an independent state using a
procedure it has established alone and an interpretation of the will of
Quebecers of which it would be the sole judge. It cannot unilaterally strip us
of our constitutional rights as Canadian citizens. It cannot establish alone the
conditions for secession, whether they relate to the debt or to territory.
We must discuss this issue, as democrats, to find
a just and fair procedure to settle the issue of secession. I cannot suggest a
specific procedure today. But I must reiterate the three principles that should
guide us in finding that procedure. The first is peacefulness. Everyone,
governments first and foremost, must renounce force or the threat of the use of
force. I repeat my invitation to Mr. Brassard to take back unambiguously the
threatening statements he has made in the past.
The second is clarity. It would be too dangerous
to launch into negotiations on secession without having the assurance that it is
what Quebecers truly want.
The third is legality. The legal framework must
be clear and recognized, so that everyone knows his or her rights and
obligations and governments are able in all circumstances to protect citizens,
respect their rights and obtain their obedience.
If Mr. Bouchard would agree on those three
principles tomorrow, we would have taken a giant step as democrats in this
difficult debate.
Conclusion
Ladies and gentlemen of the media, this is the
way in which the Government of Canada asks why and how. Why Canadian unity? How
could it be ended? In both cases, we begin with the principle that Quebecers are
also Canadians. We find that the vast majority of them want to stay Canadians.
Our government has a duty to show them that they are right. We must work even
harder to improve this federation, which already serves us so well. The
Government of Canada also has a duty to Quebecers not to take Canada away from
them unless they have very clearly demonstrated that this is what they want.
Above all, we must not mistake the target. The
problem we face is not Quebec society: it is just as open and tolerant as the
other parts of Canada. Nor must it be confused with Quebec nationalism, which
can be a positive force. Nor does it pertain to our language laws, which refer
to a debate which, in itself, when separatist ideology does not sow mistrust, is
conducted rather better in Quebec than in most other multilingual democracies.
The problem pertains specifically to the project of secession itself, which is
dividing Quebec society and depriving it of all the strength of cohesion it
would otherwise have.
In an atmosphere of clarity, I believe that
Quebecers will never give up Canada. But if that were to happen, the sad
act of secession would have to be negotiated. It would have to be negotiated
peacefully, clearly and legally. But the Government of Canada has great hopes
that those difficult circumstances will not come about. It has confidence in
Quebec's future within a united Canada.
Check against delivery.
|
