"The Roots of Reconciliation"

Notes for an address at the
Conference on Canada and Quebec

Canadian Bar Association
British Columbia Branch

Vancouver, British Columbia

March 2, 1996

I know that there is a feeling of resignation among many Canadians. This is understandable after years of never-ending constitutional disputes. Many people are thinking "What is the use of trying again?"

I am not resigned to that fate. That is why I accepted the responsibility of joining Jean Chretien's cabinet on January 25 as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Value of Canada

Why is Canadian unity so important? Quite simply because preserving unity is a way of expressing the ideal of human solidarity, whereas break-up means giving up on others and ourselves.

Canada is considered the world over to be a model of generosity and openness. Let us live up to our reputation and send the rest of the world a positive signal of reconciliation.  

We, whether Francophones or Anglophones, Aboriginals or new Canadians, Easterners or Westerners, will favour solidarity and reconciliation over break-up.

We have a country that is too good to lose, as former Prime Minister Joe Clark has so eloquently expressed.

We will find the courage necessary to be open to others, to compromise and eschew rigid positions. The problem in British Columbia, as it is elsewhere in Canada, is that those who speak loudest are not necessarily those who are open to compromise. I urge all of you, people of good will who are tolerant and open, to speak out just as loudly and clearly.

Politicians especially must act as Canadians first and be prepared to take risks to preserve our country.

We need leadership -- but leadership that is not arrogant, but is also about openness and consultation.

I am here to suggest some directions for our future, and I am also here to listen to your ideas.  In the Speech from the Throne last Tuesday you had a signal both of federal leadership and a commitment to consultation. A consultation that will include all Canadians in all parts of Canada by all useful means.

There are two goals in the Throne Speech that I especially want to emphasize here today.

First, an intelligent rebalancing of the federation and clarification of the roles of all levels of government.

And second, the recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness within Canada. 

Those two goals give us the opportunity to greatly improve the capacity of the federation to better serve its citizens.

Also, they will allow us to eliminate dangerous misunderstandings, prejudices, and false beliefs.

Rebalancing the Federation

Let's start with the first goal: rebalancing powers within the federation.

Speaking of false beliefs, there is a myth of a centralized federation which is well entrenched in Quebec and also in parts of the West.

In fact, the Canadian federation is very decentralized, one of the most decentralized in the world. And the trend of the past decades is towards even more decentralization.

Federal program spending was one and a half times provincial and municipal spending during the 1950s. It was only three quarters in 1990, and will fall to two thirds in 1996.

Another false belief is that the decentralized nature of Canada is a weakness -- in fact, it is one of our strengths.

It is no coincidence that four of the world's five richest countries are federations: Canada, the U.S., Germany, and Switzerland.

It is our diversity as a country that allows us to have different ways to be Canadian and to celebrate Canada.

The problem with our federation is not that it is too centralized, but that it is too adversarial -- there are too many disputes between federal and provincial governments.

We need a more harmonious federation. We need to find better ways of achieving our common goals and ideals than, for example, imposing rules on the provinces through the use of conditional federal spending.

Hence, we must find more cooperative ways to protect our shared Canadian values. 

This is exactly what the Government is suggesting in the Throne Speech.

The federal government has committed itself to no longer using its spending powers to create new cost-shared programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of a majority of the provinces. We will offer compensation to provinces that decide to opt out as long as they establish equivalent or comparable initiatives.

This is the first time in our history that any federal government has unilaterally agreed to this long-standing provincial request outside formal constitutional negotiations.

Regarding existing shared-cost programs, the federal government is open to establishing new, non-coercive ways of maintaining and securing national standards.

As well as problems of spending, there are also long-standing issues of overlap and duplication.

The federal government will withdraw entirely from sectors that are more appropriately the responsibility of the provinces or others, such as labour-market training, forestry, mining, and recreation.

We are open to negotiations to clarify roles in such areas as environmental management, social housing, food inspection, and tourism.

Once we have clarified these roles and responsibilities, the federal government will be better positioned to act in those areas that are more properly federal jurisdictions.

The federal government will continue to play a key role in promoting Canada's economic union, and we will take measures to promote labour mobility and interprovincial free trade.

We would like to build common national institutions, with the support of the provinces, to secure our economic union, such as a single Canadian securities commission and a national revenue collection agency.

The First Ministers' Meeting this spring will be an important opportunity to consider ways to clarify the roles of governments, and to better promote our social and economic union.

As you see, the Throne Speech indicates clearly that the federal government is showing leadership in rebalancing the federation, and that we are open to the suggestions of the provinces and others.

Transfer interrupted!

A second key step in national reconciliation will be a formal recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness -- the famous distinct society clause.

I know that this idea is not especially popular in this province, but you may be aware that in Quebec too I am also saying things that are not very popular about the likely consequences of secession.

But I must tell you the truth as I see it, and the truth is that a recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness would only help Canada.

Is the problem simply with words? Let's change the words then, if "distinct" is seen as implying "superiority" in English. I am not concerned with semantics, I am concerned with the substance. If somebody can suggest to me a better term or better legal language, I am open to their ideas.

What is the substance of a distinct society clause?

The distinct society clause is an interpretative clause, similar to section 27 of the Charter which recognizes multiculturalism.

What it offers is a guarantee that in the grey areas of the Constitution, those areas where the rules require interpretation, that the Supreme Court will take Quebec's distinctiveness into account in such areas as language, culture, and civil law.

In this way it will be useful, but it will not change the distribution of powers within the Constitution.

It is not a request for special status or special privileges.

All Canadian provinces are obviously distinct from one another. But with its difference in language, Quebec is different in a fundamental way which requires specific attention.

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.

Imagine having to move with your family to Jonquière, with about 1% English speakers. It would certainly be more demanding than moving to Lethbridge.

Imagine how British Columbians would feel if every other province had a French majority, in a world where the language of the United States was French, and French was the international language of business and media, and B.C. was the only English-speaking community in North America. Wouldn't a simple recognition of B.C.'s English-speaking identity be the least people would want?

I know that it was not intended as such outside Quebec, but many Quebecers interpreted the rejection of Meech Lake as a rejection of Quebec's culture and identity.

In fact, the recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness would be a great example of the Canadian values of openness and toleration that we all cherish. It will give Quebecers the confidence to make a full contribution to our federation.

This is why I want people to embrace Quebec society in their hearts. This is much more important than writing it on a piece of paper.

Even if it was possible to impose a distinct society clause against the objections of B.C. and Alberta, it would be worthless, because Quebecers, British Columbians, and Albertans would not feel reconciled in their hearts, whatever the Constitution might say.

Finally, what remains as an argument against the distinct society concept? There is only one, and it is a weak one, but I hear it very often. Many people tell me: "Well you know, Stéphane, I accept the distinct society personally, but it will never fly in my province, so you are wasting your time trying to defend it."

This is precisely the attitude of resignation and despair that I will never accept.

We must never give in to fear or resignation. If we do, we are only defeating ourselves. Instead, we must come together in hope and confidence, and that is the only way we can save Canada.

Check against delivery.

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=pressroom&Sub=Speeches&Doc=19960302_e.htm