"The National Unity File:
Reconciliation, Recognition, Renewal"

Notes for an address to the
Cercle canadien de Toronto

Toronto, Ontario

January 27, 1997

Introduction

I read in your newsletter announcing my speech that I would be talking about the three "Rs" of national unity: reconciliation, recognition and renewal. Since I always follow orders, I will therefore honour your request and address those three themes. Indeed, I do so with a great deal of pleasure and conviction, and I am honoured to be your first speaker of the year. As business people, as professionals who probably deal in both languages, you have a key role in promoting those three "Rs"; and, since we are at the beginning of a new year, you may wish to add that role to your New Year's resolutions... the ones you intend to keep, that is!

This idea of the three "Rs" of national unity has been making headway since it was proposed by the Coalition of the Hellenic Canadian Congress, the National Congress of Italian Canadians, and the Canadian Jewish Congress, which released its policy statement on national unity on November 26 last year. I met with the Coalition members on that occasion. That group is doing a great job in trying to promote reconciliation through dialogue and communication between citizens, communities and regions in Canada. The proof that their ideas are excellent is that their main themes have been taken up today by your group, for which I am delighted.

The only thing I don't agree with is that, in your newsletter, you associate these three "Rs" with the idea of constitutional renewal. I don't agree with that because we're not dealing with a merely constitutional problem; we're dealing with a larger problem, a problem of unity, which goes far beyond the Constitution, as I intend to demonstrate in my speech here today.

A mistake that has been made in the past is to think that changing the Constitution is the only way to solve anything. That mistake led us to two setbacks in five years, and provoked a deep-rooted feeling of rejection and a hardening of positions, both in Quebec and elsewhere in the country.

As a professor, I referred to this as a constitutional obsession, which I defined as the absurd belief that nothing can change unless the Constitution changes, and that the Canadian federation is incapable of evolving with the times. It seems to me, on the contrary, that a great many things can be done to transform our federation without changing the Constitution, and that our federation is in fact continually evolving.

In practice, constitutions evolve more often through legal interpretations, specific agreements and the exercise (or non-exercise) of powers than through amendments as such. Look at how things have changed over time in the United States, for example. Even though its Constitution, one of the oldest in the world, has not changed at all in its written form, that federation has evolved considerably. And yet, of the some 9,100 amendments that have been proposed since 1789, only 26 have been ratified.

In Canada, nowadays, intergovernmental agreements and federal-provincial consultation mechanisms enable our federation to be renewed considerably without necessarily resorting to constitutional amendments as such. Federal constitutions are thus not straitjackets that stymie change; instead, they provide a flexible legal framework that allows for initiatives and favours change. Indeed, that is why the United States and Canada have been able to evolve in very different directions. The United States has become much more centralized over time, in spite of a Constitution that its founding fathers wanted to be decentralizing. In contrast, the Constitution of Canada, which was meant to be centralizing at the time of Confederation, has enabled us to become one of the most decentralized federations in the world.

Reconciliation

If we want to save Canada, if we want to leave to future generations this country that is a model of success for the entire world, we must build bridges of reconciliation among provinces and citizens throughout the country, we must make the effort to understand and know ourselves better. Above all, this reconciliation must take place in people's hearts and minds, not just on a piece of paper signed by politicians.

In my opinion, there are two ways to interpret our current political crisis. The first is that the existence of a strong secessionist movement in Quebec proves that the Canadian federation doesn't work, that Quebec's interests and those of the rest of Canada are irreconcilable. The second, which I strongly believe in, is that the Canadian federation does work, even though it can and must be improved, and that interests can be reconciled. Our federation will realize its full potential if we all decide, both Francophone and Anglophone Quebecers and other Anglophone and Francophone Canadians, to live together in harmony, respecting our differences and the things we take pride in, within a united federation.

Most of you are businesspeople and professionals, opinion leaders; you experience the reality of biculturalism as part of your everyday lives. You can greatly help the success of national reconciliation by building bridges, by promoting dialogue by both sides. The risk of secession and the tensions and the cost of today's political uncertainty will not disappear on their own. We must convince Quebecers and other Canadians that reconciliation is possible without anyone having to renounce his or her pride, cultural authenticity, or, in particular, language. We must convince all Canadians that language is not merely one difference among many; it is something that is very important in human life.

Language is a formidable barrier, but we can overcome it. Indeed, we have never been in a better position to overcome it than we are today. People are more educated and have a greater desire to learn other languages; young people in particular are aware that knowing more than one language can expand their horizons; bilingualism is more present now than in the past, and we have to build on that to achieve reconciliation.

I am delighted by the Ontario government's decision to allow Franco-Ontarians to manage their own schools and to create seven new Francophone school boards, in addition to the four that already exist. That initiative strengthens the progress taking place in Ontario with regard to the delivery of services in French to citizens.

So let's try to overcome that barrier of language, which makes us so distant from one another, and to celebrate our ability to be Canadian in different ways, rather than dreaming of some homogeneous model which has nothing to do with what our country is all about. Newfoundlanders or British Columbians, for example, cannot be asked to be like Quebecers; all of us are Canadian in our own way, and that doesn't stop us from being proud that we all belong to the same country, Canada. Governor General Vincent Massey was right when he said that "toleration of differences is the measure of civilization."

Recognition

That brings me to the second "R", recognition. The fears some Canadians have about recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness are unfounded. Such recognition would not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and would not override any federal powers.

Former Supreme Court Chief Brian Dickson has noted that the Supreme Court already takes recognition of Quebec into account in its decisions, and that the formal entrenchment of such recognition would merely ratify that practice. The most important decision of that nature was the Ford case in 1988, in which the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule on the constitutionality of some sections of Quebec's Charter of the French Language (Bill 101). The Court considered the linguistic situation of Quebec in North America and concluded that the legislation was a response to a substantial and pressing need: the protection of the French language. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a policy designed to make French the predominant language on commercial signage in Quebec was justified, but that a prohibition against the use of other languages could not be justified.

Recognizing Quebec's difference would be a way for all Canadians to assert their solidarity with Quebecers' efforts to preserve a vibrant, dynamic Francophone society within an English-speaking North America.

While non-Francophone Quebecers massively reject secession, many of them support recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness. They consider themselves to be a part of Quebec society, and wish to remain in Canada, and see no contradiction between these two aspirations. Although the secessionist option is driven by goals they do not share, they feel strongly that Quebec society is theirs as well, because they are helping to strengthen it, alongside their Francophone fellow citizens. In its very distinctiveness, Quebec society belongs as much to them as it does to Francophones. After all, Quebec Anglophones are the only minority in North America which lives with a Francophone majority. While wanting their own rights to be respected as well, they simply ask that their Francophone fellow citizens be helped to flourish in this English-speaking continent.

Canada has developed a number of instruments to recognize Francophone reality. The Official Languages Act and the protection for the French language under the Constitution and the Civil Code of Quebec are good examples of this. While some measures were controversial when first introduced, they are now accepted as an integral part of the Canadian identity.

The resolution by the House of Commons and the Senate, passed in December 1995, proclaiming that Quebec is distinct by virtue of its unique culture, civil law tradition and Francophone majority, was inspired by that same respect of an historical and contemporary reality. In the last Speech from the Throne, the Government expressed its support to the entrenchment of those provisions in the Constitution.

I am confident that we will succeed in convincing Canadians in the majority Anglophone provinces of the need to recognize the unique spirit and culture of Quebec society, and to enable it to flourish securely within the Canadian federation.

Renewal

I'll finish with the third "R", renewal of the federation, the purpose of which is to guarantee better service for Canadians. I believe that, to deliver services to the public of comparable quality nation-wide, we need to strike a proper balance between the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.

By solidarity, I mean a sense of sharing in the common good, a sense of compassion for our fellow citizens. This spirit is perhaps most evident at times of tragedy, as with the Canada-wide efforts following the Edmonton tornado of 1987, and, more recently, the floods that devastated Quebec's Saguenay region.

This principle of solidarity is also applied within our social union. It has allowed Canadians to build a society based on justice and care for others. It has given us our health care system, a comprehensive income support system, support for seniors, and equalization payments.

The other principle, subsidiarity, makes it possible to bring government and decision-making closer to the people. The principle of subsidiarity advocates adapting to the needs and abilities of each province and region of the country.

By emphasizing the quality of services to the public and reconciling the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, we avoid the mistake of reducing federal-provincial relations to a zero-sum game. All politicians must seek to serve Canadian citizens better; we must never lose sight of the fact that the health, safety and welfare of Canadians are at stake.

The initiatives we are putting forward to renew the federation are guided by those principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, with a view to improving even further the quality of services for Canadians.

Let's look at job training, for example, which affects Canadians directly. You know as well as if not better than I do that there is a growing need for a highly skilled labour force for advanced technologies and international competition. So many developing countries now offer cheap labour that we must train our labour force accordingly if we want to be able to remain competitive and offer the wages and quality that our Canadian standards require.

That's why my colleague Pierre Pettigrew is actively negotiating with the provinces on a general framework which allows them to assume full responsibility for active employment measures and job training at the local level. The federal government will act only where responsibilities are clearly pan-Canadian or multilateral in scope. The negotiating framework is flexible, and gives maximum autonomy to the provinces that want it. The others that opt for maintaining the federal role in active measures will be able to count on our support. Alberta and New Brunswick have already signed agreements on this matter, and others are soon to follow.

This is an example of an initiative combining the two principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. One the one hand, the federal government will always be there to help provinces find common solutions, should the need arise. On the other hand, because the provinces know the education field well, they have responsibility for it. The new federal-provincial partnership in the labour market field will also better serve Canadians looking for work.

In the same vein, Mr. Pettigrew has met with his provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss the two priorities set by the premiers at their Annual Conference last August: implementation of a national child benefit program and harmonization of programs and income support measures for persons with disabilities. All ministers have recognized the urgent need for action, stating that federal-provincial cooperation is the best way to find effective, innovative solutions to the challenges we face.

Let's see how those principles of subsidiarity and solidarity can help us in this case. They allow us to rely on the provinces' ability to design and manage services, and, at the same time, on the federal government's strength of having an overall perspective on the nation-wide redistribution of wealth.

Other equally important issues require joint action by the federal government and the provinces, not only for the quality of life of our citizens, but also for our industries. One such issue is environmental protection. Here again, the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity come into play, because, while the local environment is managed locally, broader externalities must be managed as well. This makes agreement between the two orders of government a must. Last November, the federal and provincial governments agreed in principle on an environmental harmonization agreement, which will enable both orders of government to coordinate their activities more effectively. The agreement will serve as a framework for other agreements. A subsidiary agreement on environmental standards, inspection and assessment should be ratified in May by the federal and provincial governments. My colleague, Environment Minister Sergio Marchi, is doing a great job on this issue. Beyond questions of jurisdiction, the important thing is for government and business to work together to be more effective, so that present and future generations have access to high environmental quality.

The principles of solidarity and subsidiarity are just as important to our economic union as they are to our social union; the provinces manage specific situations and the federal government has the capacity to ensure overall redistribution.

Inspired by these two principles, we will succeed in eliminating interprovincial trade barriers that still exist despite the Agreement on Internal Trade. The provinces must have the flexibility to develop their own economic strategy, but that must not hamper our capacity for joint action. Those barriers are stymieing one of the key objectives of our federation, which is to ensure the free movement of goods, services, labour and capital throughout Canada. Indeed, they are weakening our economic union and sapping our international competitiveness. The Canadian Manufacturers Association has estimated that internal trade barriers cost Canada 1% of GDP a year, or nearly 7 billion dollars.

The Agreement on Internal Trade, which came into force in 1995, is a key element of our economic union and of renewing the Canadian federation. Its provisions apply to most key sectors of the economic union. Nevertheless, there are still too many obstacles that limit its effectiveness. For example, we can do much better with respect to harmonizing standards nation-wide; dispute resolution procedures could be simplified and improved; and the Agreement could be applied on a broader basis by using trade rules more comparable to our existing international commitments. To make those improvements, we need the provinces' cooperation, and my colleague Minister Manley is working to get things moving in that regard. Progress is being made, but there needs to be more and it needs to come faster; it's just too important. I'm sure that you, like many other business communities, are counting on an even stronger and more effective economic union to become more competitive at home and abroad, and I encourage you to help make this a central part of the national economic agenda.

Solidarity and subsidiarity are just as necessary and reconcilable when it comes to exports. If there is one formula that embodies the synergy and complementarity of those two principles, it's Team Canada. There's a very good reason that the federal government and the provinces work in partnership on those trade missions; it's important that the Prime Minister of Canada travel with the premiers because they bring a good grasp of their respective economies. At the same time, this Canadian showcase allows each province to promote itself to foreign importers and investors; it gives our businesses better access to expanding markets such as Asia.

The advantage of being a federation is that, on the one hand, each province has the ability, together with its business and labour communities, to design strategies linked to its resources and its culture, while on the other hand, we benefit from the strength of the Canadian whole. We in Ontario and Quebec are members of APEC, which Canada is chairing this year. Asia-Pacific is a promising future market for us precisely because we share this country with our fellow citizens in British Columbia.

I could talk about many other areas that are covered by initiatives to renew the federation, such as forestry, mining, tourism, and social housing, but I think my time is almost up. What is important to remember is that we are seeking to manage more effectively areas of interdependence between the two orders of government; that the quality of services to the public is a core concern of the federal government; and that the initiatives we are implementing to renew the federation are based on the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, which are the strength and the success of our federation.

Conclusion

As Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said recently, to keep Canada strong and united, we need "to make sure that when we will move into the 21st century, we will move with a country [...] that will keep giving an example to the world that we can be different and equal at the same time. A country that is always preoccupied about the people who are weak in society and helping those who are in difficulties [....]"

If each of you works to promote the three "Rs" -- reconciliation, recognition and renewal -- in your respective communities, you will be making an invaluable contribution to the national unity process.

Check against delivery.

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=pressroom&Sub=Speeches&Doc=19970127_e.htm