"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.

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=pressroom&Sub=Speeches&Doc=19970226_e.htm