Speaking out for Canadian solidarity - The perverse effects of separatist blackmail

"Speaking out for Canadian solidarity
The perverse effects of separatist blackmail"

Notes for an address
by the Honourable Stéphane Dion,
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,

Keynote address at the
University of Toronto
Faculty of Law

Toronto, Ontario

February 14, 2001

Check against delivery

My comments today can essentially be summed up by the following basic proposition: a country is in the best position to improve itself if all its citizens support the principle of solidarity. This principle can be stated as follows: "Whatever happens, we will choose to stay together."

What I am going to say is the very opposite of defending the status quo. This country, which we already have so many reasons to be proud of, will work even better, and will be even easier to improve, if we remain loyal to the principle of solidarity, if we give one another the assurance that we will stay together.

That assurance gives rise to greater trust in one another, a stronger and more sincere desire genuinely to look out for one another, an enhanced capacity for frank discussion and for finding solutions when disagreements arise.

For it is normal for disagreements to arise in a democracy. It is only natural that Messrs Chrétien, Day, Harris, Klein and Charest hold differing political, federative and constitutional conceptions. But the development of new solutions that results from this clash of ideas will be much more productive if it is based on an unwavering solidarity, rather than on the calling into question of the very unity of the country. As Premier Ralph Klein said recently: "The existence of tension in a federal system, however, is not a sign of irreconcilable differences -it is inevitable and exists in all federations."

The principle of solidarity stands in stark opposition not only to separatism, but also to separatist blackmail. This means using the separatist threat as a bargaining tool. I first need to explain what I mean by this expression, "separatist blackmail," before highlighting the five perverse effects inherent in it, which are also five good reasons for rejecting it.

What is separatist blackmail?

Some of our fellow citizens do not support the principle of Canadian solidarity because they no longer want to be Canadian. They are found essentially in Quebec-and even there they are less numerous than the results of a certain referendum may have suggested. What they are saying is: "I don't recognize myself in you and so I want my own country."

You don't need to scratch too deeply below the surface to find that despite what a certain rhetoric might imply, their desire for break-up does not arise because Canada might be too centralized or Quebec might not be receiving its "fair share." If that were the case, no country would be able to maintain its unity, because very few countries are more decentralized than ours or practise a more advanced regional redistribution.

No, these people want their own country because they don't feel Canadian. They want to form the majority within their own country, rather than share a larger country with others whom they do not consider to be their fellow citizens.

We need to dialogue with these Quebecers who want to renounce their Canadian dimension. We need to talk with them politely, with empathy but also with frankness, in order to show them what Canada is all about. Frankness also impels us to tell them that the reality of Canada today gives them no valid reason for taking such a serious step that would constitute transforming their fellow citizens into foreigners. Such frankness is the best and perhaps the only way to reconcile them with the principle of Canadian solidarity.

But the principle of solidarity is not only called into question by those who want separation. It is also done by those who either practise or give in to separatist blackmail. The more direct form of this consists in saying: "Do what I say, or else I'll leave." A more indirect form is expressed as follows: "Do what I say, or else those who want to leave will have more and more good arguments for doing so." And we give in to this kind of blackmail when we respond: "Let's give the separatists at least some of what they're asking for, in order to avoid separation."

Although the expression "separatist blackmail" is pejorative, I have no doubt that the vast majority of those who practise it or give in to it do so in good faith. It is a habit that catches on quickly: as soon as some people take it up, others become inclined to follow suit. And so we come to lose sight of its negative effects.

That is why I commented on January 23 on statements by Mr. Stockwell Day. He needs to say more to the supporters of this tiny new separatist group in Alberta than just be patient. He needs to tell them that Canada as it is does not deserve to be subjected to separatist blackmail. He needs always to make a crystal-clear distinction between his ideas for improving the country-including the West's place in Canada-and separatist blackmail.

Canadians are entitled to hear Mr. Day make this simple statement: "Nothing in Canada today justifies secession: not in Quebec, not in the West, not anywhere else in Canada."

Not that I am afraid that this new separatist party in Alberta is a threat to Canada. I know full well the extent to which Albertans are convinced Canadians who want to improve Canadian solidarity, not break with it. But I believe that separatist blackmail hurts us in all kinds of ways, and that some of our political leaders, who nevertheless sincerely believe in our country, need to stop flirting with this strategy.

Now I will examine the harmful nature of separatist blackmail more closely. I will highlight the five perverse effects inherent in it.

1. Separatist blackmail makes us lose sight of the public interest

From the perspective of separatist blackmail, the quality of public policies is not a concern; it disappears as an issue to give way entirely to the sole concern of allaying separatism. The suggestion is that we concede to the separatists a part of what they are asking for at least to win over their less radical elements.

For example, in terms of division of powers, the strategy of choice consists in transferring a certain number of jurisdictions of the federal government to the provincial government, not in the belief that these responsibilities would be more effectively fulfilled at the provincial level, but in the hope of allaying separatism. Since the separatists want all the powers, they will be given some of them in the hopes of satisfying the less radical among them. And if they are not satisfied, it is because still not enough powers have been transferred. More need to be added. That is the reasoning.

This reasoning does not work. The separatists do not want piecemeal powers; they want a new country. Quebec's pro-independence leaders made no bones about this in the last election campaign in the province. They made it clear that every concession in the form of transfers of powers would be welcomed as one more step toward independence. They called this "booty" politics.

It is an error to give in to this booty politics. Every transfer of power, like every effort to improve our federation, ought to be motivated by nothing other than the quest for the common good.

2. Separatist blackmail tends to trivialize the issue of secession

Separatist blackmail leads us to make the mistake of looking for some sort of median solution between secession and Canadian unity, a sort of semi-separation. But this elusive median solution obviously does not exist. What does exist, though, are either proposals for improving Canada, or proposals for leaving it. It is important always to maintain a very clear distinction between these two types of proposals.

Usually, when Quebecers are polled on their political status, they're given a range of four options: 1) the constitutional status quo, 2) renewed federalism, 3) sovereignty-association (now called sovereignty with an offer of partnership) and 4) independence. In point of fact, this range is split apart by the issue of secession.

It is not true that renewed federalism and sovereignty-partnership are neighbouring concepts. There is a gulf between them: secession. In fact, the notions of the constitutional status quo and renewed federalism, on the one hand, and those of sovereignty-partnership and independence, on the other, constitute two pairs totally separated by the break of secession.

I'm sure you're aware of the numerous polls showing that between 20% and 35% of YES voters in the 1995 referendum believed that a sovereign Quebec would still be part of Canada. This should come as no surprise, considering how long Quebecers have been told that there is only a nuance between "sovereignty-partnership" and "renewed federalism."

That falsehood has been debunked in recent years. The Government of Canada has worked hard to clarify the secession issue. The Supreme Court reference, my open letters to Mr. Bouchard and to his ministers, the Clarity Act, this whole exercise in clarification has cleared away the fog. It has highlighted the large numbers of Quebecers who, when things are clear, express their attachment to Canada and their determination not to lose it.

In addition to making us lose sight of the issue of secession, the tainted reasoning which presents this vague notion of "sovereignty-partnership" as a moderate solution, akin to "renewed federalism," introduces another bias. It depicts Canadians who are not calling for specific constitutional changes as the extremist counterpart of the advocates of separation. Those Canadians who are proud of Canada as it is, one of the most prosperous and most tolerant countries in the world, one of the most decentralized federations, become extremists, supporters of a solution depicted as just as radical as secession.

As you know, Mr. Chrétien's Liberal government plans to continue to improve the country without pursuing constitutional changes for the time being. For this reason, the Canadian constitutional industry tends to define it as the opposite extreme of the proponents of Quebec separation. An editorialist with the National Post recently pushed this intellectual confusion so far as to apply it to the case of the small separatist group that has just sprung up in Alberta: "On one extreme are Western separatists, led by the Alberta Independence Party, [...] On the other extreme is Jean Chrétien." (National Post, January 26, 2001, p. A15)

I believe that no good can come of trivializing the issue of secession in this way, least of all productive constitutional negotiations.

3. Separatist blackmail leads us to blow our disagreements out of proportion

At the same time as it trivializes the extreme act of secession, separatist blackmail blows out of all proportion the quite normal disagreements that we have in Canada.

In effect, separatist blackmail leads us to consider changes not in order to improve the country, but to save it. And this leads to an escalation, with each side believing that the changes it is proposing are of life-and-death importance. This escalation makes us lose our sense of perspective. We almost forget how small the things that divide us are in comparison with the wrenching tragedies unfolding in other countries.

In this respect, I urge you to reread Mr. Bouchard's farewell speech, in which he justified his departure from political life by his inability to inflame Quebecers against the "offensives" of the federal government. In his indictment of the federal government, Mr. Bouchard mentioned four things: the Millennium Scholarships, the Canada Research Chairs, the social union and the Clarity Act. Excuse me? This is what should have convinced Quebecers to separate: more money for our students, research chairs for our best professors, a governmental agreement in the social field, and recognition that the country is divisible but not any which way? I doubt there is any other country in the world where such governmental initiatives would have served as justification for as extreme an action as secession.

4. Separatist blackmail aggravates regional jealousies

Separatist blackmail demands that concessions be made to the separatists. It thereby penalizes those citizens who do not use it as leverage to bump up their concerns in the order of governmental priorities.

I am convinced that a government ought not to favour separatists. It ought to treat all its citizens with the same concern for justice and fairness. That is what we have sought to do in Canada.

Quebec is not the spoiled child of the federation. The reason it receives more from the federal government than it contributes to federal revenues is that it is a little less wealthy than the Canadian average. But Albertans and Ontarians give more assistance per capita to their fellow citizens in Atlantic Canada, Manitoba and the three territories than to those in Quebec.

Nevertheless, because Quebec separatism has for decades garnered more attention than any other political phenomenon in Canada, and has been at the centre of our national melodramas, the belief has developed in the other provinces that the primary, if not the only, concern of the federal government is Quebec. The idea has formed that other concerns, especially those of the West, are neglected by the federal government. Some have come to regret not using separatist blackmail as a way to attract attention to their claims.

I was able to experience the depths of that feeling recently. On November 5, the Calgary Herald published a quotation in which I said I was not afraid that separatism would rise in the West: "All Westerners are committed Canadians. To me it's not an issue," I stated. Under normal circumstances, this statement would have been taken for what it is-the expression of my faith in Western Canadians-not at all of any disinterest in their concerns. But in fact, that statement was criticized in some newspapers and by political adversaries as proof that the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister does not care about the West.

Should I have said that Western Canadians are crypto-separatists? Was that the way to prove that I take to heart the interests of this region of my country?

To all my fellow citizens in the other provinces who believe that separatist blackmail has paid off for Quebec, I would like to say just how much the very opposite is true. I have seen in my province all of the deplorable waste of not only money, but also energy and talent, that it has occasioned. It has been a total loss for Quebec and for all of Canada.

In the long term, this aggravation of regional tensions tarnishes the image that Canada's own citizens have of their country. They come to see their country as a perpetual dispute. Some conclude that separation is the way to achieve peace.

I'm sure you recall Mr. Bouchard's main argument in the 1995 referendum, "la fin de la chicane"-putting an end to all the quarreling. After a YES vote, not only would there no longer be any quarrels with other Canadians, but Quebecers themselves, he promised, would no longer be sovereignists and federalists, only Quebecers, brothers and sisters, more united than ever. That was undoubtedly the most effective argument for the YES side. But at the same time, it was also the most false.

The surest way to deeply divide Quebecers among themselves is to ask them to renounce Canada. An attempt at secession, especially if it were made on the basis of an unclear question, an uncertain majority and outside the legal framework, would not only pit Quebec and Canada against each other, but would also plunge Quebecers into an ugly fight the likes of which they have never known. There is a better appreciation of that now because the Government has worked hard to demonstrate it.

5. Separatist blackmail relieves the separatist leaders of the burden of proof

Separatist blackmail presents advocates of Canadian unity with an insurmountable task: making Canada acceptable. We can and must always make Canada better, but we cannot make it acceptable, for the simple reason that it already is, and indeed much more than just acceptable. It is an extraordinary country, far from perfect but admirable by world standards.

Separatist blackmail calls on us to focus all our attention on the ability of advocates of Canadian unity to accomplish this insurmountable task of delivering the grand reform that will solve everything. The burden of proof is on them. Ultimately, no further questions are asked about the why and the how of secession. The separatist leaders are relieved of the obligation to justify and explain their option.

A separatist leader's task of persuasion is made much easier if, rather than having to prove why the province's residents would be happier if they ceased to be Canadian, he or she merely has to repeat the mantra: "Since the federalists haven't delivered the grand reform, let's leave."

We must respond to this loud and clear that, because nothing justifies secession in Canada, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the separatist leaders. It is up to them to prove that we would be happier if we became foreigners rather than remaining fellow citizens.

Conclusion

Separatist blackmail involves a series of perverse effects, as I have just described. It implies a logic of concessions in which citizens' interests are lost from view. It trivializes secession and the rupture it represents. It sows jealousy, confusion and weariness. It relieves the separatist leaders of the obligation to justify their project.

The principle of solidarity does just the opposite: the assurance of remaining together helps us to dialogue, to keep our sense of perspective in the event of disagreement, and to find together the means of furthering the common good. We must remain loyal to the principle of solidarity. It is what gives us the best chance of making our country ever better.

I am very proud of the improvements that the Chrétien government has made to our federation in recent years. Step by step, issue after issue, the Jean Chrétien way, we have enhanced our governments' capacity to work together while respecting each other's jurisdictions. In all areas, be it health, early childhood development, the environment, agriculture or infrastructure, our governments are developing new ways to serve citizens better. These changes may not be as spectacular as some mega-scale constitutional reform, but they are effective, and they are improving, tangibly, Canadians' quality of life. I am convinced of that.

And yet, it would never occur to me to imply that these improvements now make Canada acceptable, whereas it was not at the time of the 1995 referendum. Of course Canada was more than acceptable in 1995.

Nor would I dream of denying the right of other political parties to say that their approach to federalism would be better for the country. I am simply asking them never to claim or imply that the Liberal approach justifies secession.

I am sure you appreciate that, in speaking out for the principle of solidarity, I am in no way suggesting to renounce any reform of the Constitution. Of course the Constitution is not perfect. I'm not saying that our Senate is perfect, or that an interpretive clause recognizing the unique character of Quebec would be of no use. I am in no way denying the need to reflect on our Constitution and our federalism, as Mr. Charest's party did recently. Indeed, I warmly welcome the fact that every political party that believes in Canada has its own ideas and its own methods for improving our federation.

I simply hope that all our political leaders who believe in Canada renounce using the threat of separatism as an argument to further their own political or constitutional preferences.

I would like to hear them say that nothing justifies secession in Canada today. We all have our own ideas about how to improve our country, be it through constitutional or other means. But none of those improvements is so fundamental that we have to separate if we fail to achieve it. Resolutely deciding to stay together in full confidence is the best way to help each of us achieve our aspirations.

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=pressroom&Sub=Speeches&Doc=20010214_e.htm