Re-Confederation. A Test of Will

Introduction:

Honoured guests, ladies and gentlemen; it is once again a great privilege to welcome the Prime Minister of Canada, the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney as our guest speaker at this special joint meeting of The Empire Club of Canada and The Canadian Club of Toronto.

The Prime Minister has addressed our members on three previous occasions. Once in 1984: the issue was a pending election and he was Leader of the Loyal Opposition. The second time was in June of 1988 when he brought along a special guest by the name of Ronald Reagan, at the conclusion of a most successful economic summit. Later that same year he returned to present a case for the pending Free Trade Agreement. I need not remind you Sir, that each time you spoke you got what you wanted; elected; improved economic relationships and free trade.

Today we find Canada, unfortunately, at war in the Persian Gulf and, in the post Meech Lake discussions, deeply divided at home. Someone once remarked bitterly to Benjamin Franklin that the Constitution of the U.S.A. was a booby trap. "Where is all the happiness it is supposed to guarantee for us?" jeered the cynics. "Look at the bickering, the injustice, the poverty."

Franklin smiled tolerantly and replied, "All that the Constitution of the United States guarantees, my friend, is the pursuit of happiness. You have to catch up with it yourself."

The bringing to Ottawa of Canada's own Constitution by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was deeply flawed in its exclusion of Quebec. The attempt of the Meech Lake Accord to rectify that shortcoming was also found to be short of the mark.

The preliminary discussions of Keith Spicer's forum are indicating a great dissatisfaction on the part of many Canadians with the status quo. Late last year our joint clubs heard Jacques Parizeau present an alternative to the Canadian federation that few of us were happy about. "One nation, under God, from sea to sea." That was the vision of our ancestors. A common sense of pride in harnessing the wilderness, in tying the nation together with bands of steel. A nation rich in resources, faithful in the cause of peace and very tolerant.

But what has happened? Why, when we have so much, do we have such unrest?

Prime Minister, we need a vision to draw us together. Please give us that vision today and perhaps once more this forum can provide a basis for success.

Brian Mulroney:

Since the turn of the century, members of The Empire and Canadian Clubs have been concerned with important issues of Canadian public policy. I have come here today to discuss the most fundamental issue of all--the future of Canada itself. The question is whether we still want to live together in this country, for a country exists first and foremost in the hearts of its people.

We are entering a period in the life of Canada that will test our will, and our idea of Canada. Canadians today are concerned with the economy, but in the end, economic prosperity depends on national unity. A united country sends a strong positive signal to the international investment community. A divided country creates a climate of uncertainty, and political uncertainty leads inevitably to economic stagnation. Our prosperity is not what it could be. Our unity is not what it should be. Together, we must work on both.

The need for change runs deep in every region of the country. The challenge is not the demand for change, the challenge is to get it right. The issue is not change for the sake of change, but change for the sake of a better Canada. It's one thing to recognize we have problems--and we do--but that's no reason for anyone to give up on Canada.

If we are wise, as well as bold, we have an opportunity at this moment of perhaps our greatest challenge to create a modem, efficient and dynamic Canada for a new century. Canadians want a country that reflects the diversity of the regions and upholds the integrity of the whole.

Canadians now have an opportunity to express their views through the Citizen's Forum on the federal level, and a number of public commissions on the provincial level. The Joint Committee of the Commons and Senate will also be seeking the views of Canadians on improving the process for constitutional change. Once we have heard as broad as possible a spectrum of views, the Government of Canada will bring forward a comprehensive proposal for a new and stronger Canada. Without pre-empting anyone's views or recommendations, today I would like to explain a few realities and state my own principles and bottom lines.

I begin from the premise of a strong and united Canada. We have every intention of restructuring Canada. We have no intention of dismantling it. Every generation of Canadians has, at difficult moments in our history, made its own contribution to Canada.

Twenty years after Confederation, Sir Wilfrid Laurier surveyed the emerging Canadian landscape and expressed deep pessimism at what he saw: "The province of Manitoba [was] in open revolt ... the province of Nova Scotia demand[ed] its separation from Confederation ... In fact ... from East to West and from North to South ... the prevailing feeling [was] one of unrest and uneasiness, of discontent and irritation." And three years later ... exactly a century ago ...Laurier warned that: "We have come to a period in the history of this young country when premature dissolution seems to be at hand."

And yet, here we are 100 years later, having dealt effectively with Laurier's fears and required today to confront new ones. There is no reason to dwell on how we arrived at this difficult moment, but every reason for this generation of Canadians to grasp the opportunity it offers. That means we have to turn a page of our history before we can write the next chapter.

We have to be alive to the sense of deep rejection felt in Quebec at the failure to ratify the Meech Lake Accord. A great sadness, followed by anger, overtook those Quebecers who were strongly saying yes to Canada, when it became apparent that the agreed-upon accord would not be adopted. But a sense of hurt over a constitutional failure--however real--is insufficient reason for Quebecers to give up on Canada. You don't change convictions, or countries, the way you change shirts.

Let's understand something else. The Government of Canada does not speak for what some mistakenly refer to as "English Canada." The Government of Canada speaks for all Canadians, including Quebecers. And whoever is Prime Minister, wherever he or she comes from, speaks on behalf of all Canadians, whether their language is English or French, whether they live in Quebec or the Yukon Territory. I have this message for all Canadians: let's stop throwing around careless statements, like: "Let them go" or "Quebec is already gone so let's get someone to negotiate the separation agreement." I know that many Canadians are offended by repeated suggestions from some in Quebec that federalism has brought nothing but misery to the nation. As Canadians, let's resist retaliatory messages equally unhelpful, and let's begin to restore mutual understanding and respect among the partners in Confederation.

What some people call "the rest of Canada" should understand is that Quebecers will never negotiate on their knees, and Quebecers should understand that "the rest of Canada" cannot be expected to negotiate "with a knife at its throat"--as a prominent Quebecer recently recommended. We have become so addicted to recrimination and division that we have become almost immune to the damage being inflicted on our country. And, in the process, we have tended to forget the remarkable accomplishments that have grown from affection and unity.

Let's look at what we've got before we give it all up: The quality of our lives can be seen through the windows of this hotel--first rate schools, clean subways, excellent health care, safe streets, marvellous recreational facilities and widespread economic opportunities. Not perfect, perhaps, but a quality of fife that is admired by people around the world, millions of whom dream of becoming citizens of a great country called Canada.

With only 26 million people, we have built the eighth largest economy in the world; we belong to the G7 Summit Group of leading industrialized countries that met here in Toronto in 1988; among those countries, only Japan had a stronger growth rate between 1984 and 1989; no G7 nation matched Canada's employment growth in that period; Canada has the second highest per capita income of the 24 OECD countries, and an average family income last year of $50,000. So let's not pretend there are no political, economic or social consequences to the break-up of this country.

For all Canadians--no matter where they five--the loss would be enormous. Quebecers would lose their place in one of the most prosperous, influential and respected countries in the world. And "the rest of Canada" as some call it, would become "what's left of Canada," with the Atlantic provinces completely cut off, and the West overwhelmed by the economic and population clout of Ontario. Half the population of Canada would live in Ontario, more than half the economic wealth would be produced in Ontario, the Parliament of Canada would be effectively controlled by Ontario and Ontario alone would be able to veto constitutional change. Even with all the admiration and respect Canadians have for Ontario, how do you think that would go down in the West? or in the Maritimes? What kind of Senate reform could they then expect?

Those who for decades have resented what they perceived as Central Canadian dominance, would be well advised to consider that the situation would only worsen, and not improve, under this scenario. In thinking about these questions, let's not forget that Canadian unity brings important economic benefits. We are more than neighbours, we are also important customers of one another.

In 1989, Ontario sold $35 billion worth of goods to other provinces. Nearly half of Ontario's inter-provincial sales, some $16 billion, were to Quebec. And Ontario imported $13 billion worth of goods from Quebec. That's a two-way trading relationship of nearly $30 billion. And 200,000 jobs depend on this relationship continuing. The balance of inter-provincial trade cuts the other way, as well. In the manufacturing sector, Quebec makes 17 percent of its deliveries to Ontario, while Ontario makes 8 percent of its deliveries to Quebec. Altogether Quebec sells 26 percent of its manufactured goods to other Canadian provinces, as opposed to only 21 percent in global export sales, including those to the United States.

But the real spirit of Canada is not measured in dollars, its strength is not measured in tons or bushels, nor is its influence measured in square kilometres. Canada lives in the hearts and minds of every Canadian. Who among us hasn't felt a surge of emotion on hearing our national anthem, or in seeing the Maple Leaf sewn on the knapsacks of young Canadians abroad? I don't know of many Canadians who aren't deeply moved when they visit our military cemeteries in Europe or Asia, or who haven't felt a quiet sense of pride when they see the superb job being done by men and women fighting for peace under the Canadian flag in the Persian Gulf.

Well, it is because we love this country, and because quite frankly this country needs a little love right now, that we must find it within ourselves to renew our bonds as Canadians. I don't agree with those who are ready to throw in the towel. For my part, as long as I have strength, as long as I have life, I will believe in and work for the benefits, moral and material, that a united Canada confers on all of its citizens. For the issue that confronts us today is not Quebec and "the rest of Canada," the issue is Canada, period.

We must deal with the sense of powerlessness in the--West, and disparity in the Atlantic. We must listen to the concerns of the North and the voices of our aboriginal peoples. We must seek to understand the growing feeling of frustration of many Ontarians whose contribution to Canada is rarely recognized. We must find a way to ensure that Quebecers, whose special character so enriches the distinctiveness of our national life, become willing and enthusiastic partners in Canada. This means our Constitution must ensure the capacity of Quebecers to develop their unique personality within Canada. There should be little doubt about the fact that Quebec brings an enormously important dimension to Canadian life. To conceive of Canada without Quebec's vibrancy and uniqueness is to envisage a greatly diminished nation.

While we're prepared to look at new arrangements, several basic principles must be respected. Let me state them here today. First, any change should lead to a more prosperous Canada. This has been the bench-mark of federal economic policy, from the Free Trade Agreement, to privatization and fiscal changes such as the Goods and Services Tax. The issue is not whether a policy is popular, but whether it is right; not whether there is some painful adjustment in the short term, but whether it ensures prosperity and economic strength in the long term. If it can be demonstrated that a transfer of some federal jurisdictions to the provinces will enhance the prosperity of Canadians, the federal government will not hesitate to agree to it. But the process of re-Confederation is a two-way street. There may be some things now in provincial jurisdiction that could be handled better by the federal government, as Canada is called upon to confront the challenges of globalization in the 21st century.

Second, and in this same context, the federal government will promote constitutional changes that lead to a more efficient federation and a more competitive nation. There are far too many overlapping jurisdictions in this country. Canadians are over-governed. It does not diminish or increase the authority of the central government to eliminate waste and duplicated services, including those in its own system. We also need to eliminate barriers to trade among the provinces, which diminish our international competitiveness.

Third, we must be guided by fairness--we want a Canada that respects not only the diversity of its citizens, but also their equality.

Fourth, let's not be tied down by stale dogma or tired ideology. We have had quite enough constitutional dances on the head of a pin in Canada. In the last constitutional debate, the perfect became the enemy of the good. Had the same stringent tests of perfection been applied to the BNA Act as were applied to Meech Lake, the Fathers of Confederation might have never got Canada off the drawing board and on the way to nationhood. So in the next negotiation, let's ask what's practical. Let's ask what's doable and how to get it done. Let's look at common features of the various agendas, and let's look where differences can be reconciled, for the good of all.

Fifth, we need to maintain certain national standards in the interests of all Canadians. This means, for example, that pensions must be portable, and that health care must be accessible for all Canadians. It also means that, in shared jurisdictions, such as the environment, we have an absolute duty to Canadians to work together in the common interest. Acid rain does not respect provincial boundaries or national borders. Neither do toxic wastes in the St. Lawrence River, many of which come from the Great Lakes, and which then proceed to kill Beluga whales in my own riding of Charlevoix, hundreds of kilometres away.

Sixth, we are prepared to consider any and all arrangements that have the effect of moving decision-making closer to the people and involving people in the decision-making process itself. Ottawa does not always know best. The record clearly establishes that. Other voices and approaches must be encouraged, not stifled.

Finally, we must safeguard the rights of all Canadians. It is enough that we already have one notwithstanding clause in the Charter. In my judgment, that is one too many and I can assure you that we will have no more. Those are my bottom lines.

In any constitutional discussions, the Government of Canada will not be a referee. Vital Canadian interests are at stake, and the federal government will be playing a strong and vigorous role in articulating and defending them. Let me be clear: Canada is not up for grabs. Either you have a country or you don't. You can't have it both ways. My country is Canada I intend to strengthen it and I intend to keep it.

Within the framework of a strong and united Canada, there's a lot of room for discussion and modification. There is nothing about our Constitution that is, or should be cast, in stone. There is nothing timeless about it, either. Change is possible, change is needed and change is coming.

In the months ahead, I look forward to receiving the views of Canadians from all the regions and provinces of Canada, as well as from the Territories and our aboriginal peoples. While we need to be realistic about the gravity of the situation, I believe there is ground for hope. There are enough shared values, and enough common ground to bring Canadians together.

Quebecers want real change, and so do all Canadians. Quebecers want a durable solution to this issue, but so do all Canadians, so we can all move on to other questions, and get on with the rest of our lives. Quebecers want their difference respected and Canadians all across Canada want their diversity acknowledged as well. Quebecers may be uncertain about their constitutional future, but ask them if they want to give up their Canadian citizenship or their Canadian passports or whether they no longer wish to send MPs to Ottawa.

Ask them those questions directly and clearly and I believe they will respond that the answer is no, because of our shared values, common experience, and impressive achievements as Canadians. Tomorrow, I will be speaking to the Chambre de Commerce in Quebec City and I will be asking Quebecers to consider what we have achieved together in Canada, what we have achieved as Canadians.

As in any relationship, there are advantages and disadvantages. We often hear the metaphor of Canada as a marriage, as a "mariage de raison," a marriage headed for divorce. It's not my metaphor of choice for Canada, but let's consider it for a moment. Divorce is expensive, corrosive and, inevitably, leaves bitterness on both sides. Reconciliation isn't easy either. It requires humility and understanding. It means not only the partners to the marriage but all the members of the family sitting down and talking through their problems, and achieving a resolution of them. I believe that once Canadians consider the cost and consequences of divorce, they will choose the option of reconciliation. We will not solve our problems by pretending they don't exist. They do and they're serious. In dealing with them, we need a strong sense of realism, but we also need a genuine sense of perspective.

When you travel abroad, as I'm privileged to do in my position on behalf of Canadians, you quickly notice two attitudes about Canada. First, how we are the envy of the world for our freedom, our prosperity and our way of life. And second, how could a country that has so much, possibly be talking about breaking up?

Truly, we do need to see ourselves as others see us. This is a good country, worth building, worth keeping. It was worth the efforts of the first Canadians--our aboriginal peoples--thousands of years ago. It was worth the effort of the first settlers--French- and English- speaking,- hundreds of years ago. It was worth the effort of those who came from Eastern Europe in one generation, and East Asia in the next, and from all over the globe every day since. It was worth the efforts of those, our own parents in many cases, who built towns where once there had only been wilderness.

Canada is worth the effort because of the values we set store by in this country: respect for diversity and for one another's language, culture and religion; respect for the rule of law; a sense of honourable compromise that is ingrained in our national character; an impressive degree of pluralism, and a welcome openness to the world. It's quite a country, all right, and we can be challenged now, as never before in our history, to keep it together. I believe we can, if we listen to the farsighted wisdom of Sir John A Macdonald, over a century ago: "We are a great country," he said, "and shall become one of the greatest in the world if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken."

For those who fear the future, whose confidence has been eroded by calls for regionalism, whose faith has been shaken by appeals to division, I propose a greater dream: a new Canada, emerging from the darkness of doubt and the dismay of lost opportunity; a new Canada, re-confederated, rebuilt and reborn, that will be modern, flexible and competitive, able to satisfy both the hopes of our newest immigrants and the pride of our founding peoples; a new Canada where all Canadians, French-speaking and English-speaking, come to admire one another for what we have achieved together and love Canada for the majestic contribution she has made to the cause of peace and justice throughout the world.

The appreciation of the meeting was expressed by Al Jameson, President, The Canadian Club of Toronto.