Ontario and the National Dream

MR. KARN:

Mr. Premier, My Lord Nelson, Honourable Ministers, Reverend Sir, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: We are most pleased to welcome such a large number of members and guests today in honour of the Premier of Ontario, who is a faithful member and loyal supporter of The Empire Club of Canada. It is not every speaker who would plan such activities as the release of his annual budget--$13.6 billions in this instance--and delay a possible announcement of an election, just to build an audience for our club, when we were holding this large Canadian Room in reserve.

Sir--the audience today is in keeping with the statistical announcement of March 20th, 1977, which must have been warmly reassuring to you: 52--29--19.

Ladies and gentlemen, these figures do not relate to the winner of any beauty contest, but represented the preferences of a sampling of the Ontario electorate for the leaders of the three political parties at Queen's Park, according to the latest Gallup Poll.

Now that the Honourable Darcy McKeough has established his target of dollars, taxes and tactics, we note that among his other colleagues in the Legislature our speaker is today accompanied by the Honourable Margaret Scrivener whose responsibility it is to harvest the needed revenue. We know that her dedication to that duty will not diminish the admiration and respect held for her by all of her fellow Empire Club members. Moreover, she helped me arrange for our guest of honour today.

Mr. Davis is the fifth consecutive Progressive Conservative to hold the office of Premier of Ontario since 1943. After studying at his Brampton home town schools, University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall Law School, he was called to the bar in 1955, building upon the foundation in law established by his illustrious father.

The political environment of Peel must also have influenced our guest of honour who succeeded the much admired Honourable Thomas Kennedy as member for Peel riding in June 1959. Today he enjoys the staunch support of the riding of Brampton.

After serving on several committees of the Legislature, he again proved the adage that youth will have its day by being appointed Minister of Education in 1962, at the tender age of 33, receiving the additional portfolio of University Affairs in 1964.

In these posts he presided over a dramatic expansion and re-shaping of the province's education system to meet the post-war population boom and the growing expectations of its young people.

It was therefore no surprise when in 1971, after a dozen years of internship, he should assume the mantle of Premier from the Honourable John P. Robarts, who is now the Honorary Solicitor of our Empire Club, and that he should promptly establish his own style by reorganizing government structures and people. Since that time, and later as leader of a minority government following the 1975 election, his administrative skills and political experience have enabled him to provide government which reflects a sound businesslike approach and a compassionate understanding of the needs of people.

Today he is vitally concerned with the necessity of Ontario doing its part in keeping Canada a strong and united whole, and I am honoured to invite the Honourable William G. Davis, Q.C., M.P.P., LL.D., Premier of Ontario, to speak to us on the subject, "Ontario and the National Dream".

THE HONOURABLE WILLIAM G. DAVIS:

Mr. President, friends, fellow Canadians: It is good to be here with you this afternoon, although I have to admit quite frankly that I come with some trepidation. There are some, no doubt, who would expect that I might use the platform of the Empire Club to announce a provincial election. For those who may have come today with such expectations I convey my apologies.

Similarly I apologize to any who might have thought this to be a good occasion to deal with some province-wide political issues in a fashion that might be helpful should we find ourselves in a provincial election at some early date. Today, in my opinion, is not the day for that kind of speech. There may have been times when the forum of the Empire Club has been an appropriate place for various political leaders to advance notions and ideas, in the context of seeking public support, but that is not my purpose on this occasion. I am hopeful you will not take me to task for coming to that conclusion.

I would suggest, however, that the political and economic circumstance that prevails in this country today is one which surely begins to challenge many of the thoughts and views which have been expressed in recent years by political leaders of all affiliations, as well as by the captains of industry and labour.

I realize that, when you think back to some of the people who have spoken to you, prime ministers, premiers, presidents of corporations, labour union leaders, or whoever, the net impression of what they have said is likely to be a hazy blur. Nevertheless, to the extent that you can recall those past messages, you may now be asking yourself what relevance most of them have had to the particular challenges that now face this country.

I don't know how many politicians, and I group myself in this context when I raise these doubts, have ever been prepared to create any real distance between themselves and the three or four basic strains of contemporary thinking which have been applied to the political or economic problems of our day. For, in frankness, it is not an easy thing for someone holding public office to depart in any radical sense from what appears to be the common wisdom. Nevertheless, it is fair and justifiable to expect from our leaders that, while they not reject the common wisdom, they be something more than just an unquestioning servant of it.

Let me confess that I regard myself as one who has more than a fair share of the common wisdom within his own political philosophy and past commitments. But the events of the last year or so in this country raise questions, for me at least, as to whether the time has come for thoughtful people, in positions of leadership, to seek a broader and more integrated understanding of the whole range of problems which we now face.

For, it seems to me, that we face a danger in this country of being unable to meet the fundamental challenge of our own political and economic survival because we have chosen to paralyze ourselves with constraints which while real may not be relevant.

I am reminded of the arguments that were advanced relative to the establishment of a secret intelligence organization in the free world during the years preceding World War II. There was, we are told, a great distaste for the establishment of that kind of organization--it would have been ungentlemanly, secretive and not really in keeping with the thrust and fairness of an open and democratic society. Nevertheless, the reality was clear. Others who shared no feeling for democracy and no tradition of freedom were quite prepared to deploy such means in the advancement of their own purposes and nefarious goals.

Ultimately the western world, and the Atlantic Alliance which was formed, did succeed in meeting covert action with covert action and in a sense preserved democracy and freedom as a heritage for us.

Now, in 1977, we face a very real challenge to the absolute viability of the political entity which we have come to know as Canada. Just as important, we face a very real economic challenge to maintain the era of prosperity and economic freedom which we have come to enjoy in this country. As in my example, however, we must ask whether, in meeting these challenges, we are in danger of constraining ourselves and limiting ourselves in a fashion that may be contrary to our ultimate interests.

Let me be specific. How many of us, in looking at the economy, in looking at the statistical measurements of its performance and success, find ourselves constrained by some of the old arguments and the old clichés that are applied to this area of our natural endeavour.

It is important, I think, that we understand why an economy must function properly and what the ultimate purpose of that function should be.

Certainly, it is interesting and by no means unimportant to deal in terms of the amount of economic capacity being used, the level of employment being sustained and the margins of profitability which are realistic.

But, in the final analysis, when you talk about profits and the way they are essential to economic growth and security, or when you talk about productivity and the way it is essential to competitiveness and economic livelihood, you are really talking about people, people who are prepared to take a risk with their capital because there would be a meaningful return if their judgement proves to be correct or partially correct, people who are prepared to amass and direct capital into the expansion of industry and job-creating activities, people who are prepared to speculate on the growth and vitality and confidence of this country and thereby put their money to work in the broad national interest.

When you talk about productivity you talk about industry, its management and its labour component, the people who try to make things run appropriately and the people who are responsible for actually getting the work done; people who are prepared to co-operate and work together in a fashion that provides the greatest possible output for the time, finances and material being committed.

That too is an expression of confidence, confidence in the fruits of one's labour and in our ability to meet our needs for survival, well-being, growth and security.

In that context, I find it both belittling for our country and insulting to the average Canadian to see so many tied up in the rather semantic debate as to whether it is unemployment or inflation which happens to be more important or more serious at any one point in time.

I say to you very frankly that it is an obsession with aft "either/or" approach to economic understanding which is, in very large terms, responsible for the boom and bust' cycle which those of us who are committed to a free economy should be doing more to avoid.

It is hard to expect expanded productivity from an individual whose salary cheque is simply not large enough to sustain his quality of life and to allow him to build a secure future for his family. It is similarly naive to somehow hope that for the person who is genuinely unemployed a rate of unemployment which dropped six-tenths of a per cent or three-tenths of a per cent can have any possible bearing at all. For that person the level of unemployment is 100%, as is the level of alienation and despair.

Further, I believe that we have to be careful that we do not allow ourselves to become slaves to any analysis or ideology which would appear to hold a simple solution to a complex problem. In general, our approach is not necessarily in terms of problems and solutions. What we really have had to do in recent years is deal with each set of problems in a fashion that will not create too many further problems if our efforts are to be regarded as successful. That is the reality we have to face, the reality of trade offs, balances and the ultimate notion of fairness and freedom.

In dealing with the political future of this country I think it is equally as dangerous to allow ourselves to be limited to old solutions and assumptions. Again let me be specific.

The government of the province of Quebec, as it is now constituted, is committed to the independence of that province from Canada and to some economic association with this country thereafter. Setting aside the road blocks to independence with which the government of Quebec has itself admitted it must be prepared to deal, I think it is important that we clearly understand how far Canadians, both as individuals and as participants in the national way of life, are prepared to go in the debate and the dialogue in which we will be engaged for some time to come.

I have said this in Quebec and I said this in the Legislature of our province on Monday night and I say it again to you today.

Insofar as all those involved in the debate are trying to find a creative, just, and viable resolution of the problem, I believe that fair mindedness, and a genuine spirit of understanding will prevail. As soon, however, as doors are closed, debates are ended and discussions are terminated, those who are responsible for that termination and that closing off of options would be naive to believe that the same spirit of understanding will continue thereafter.

In clear terms that means that it would be absolutely foolhardy for the government of Quebec to believe that it could have both independence and economic association with the rest of Canada.

Moreover, I would not be prepared to commit the government of this province, and the people whom we serve, to that kind of understanding with any government.

In this regard, I took particular offense, and said so when I went to the province of Quebec, at the tenor and thrust of the address offered to you by the minister of finance of Quebec. I asked both rhetorically and directly who is he and for that matter who is anyone to say to the people of this country, to say to you, to say to me, to say to any Canadian that the debate is over, the discussions have ended, the time for negotiation has passed. As long as I am premier of this province and am able to serve politically, that kind of defeatism will not be acceptable to the province of Ontario.

We should also deal, I believe, with a couple of other' assumptions that have become part of the mythology that surrounds much of the debate. Those who suggest that there is a quid pro quo with respect to French language services here in Ontario and the ultimate posture of the government of Quebec with respect to that province's future do so without any basis in fact.

I take some issue with those who would suggest that the rights of French-speaking citizens in this province somehow hang tenuously upon what may or may not transpire in another province.

I took particular umbrage when it was suggested in northern Ontario that there would not be much left of French language rights in Ontario should Quebec decide to secede.

The rights of French-speaking citizens in this province, social, political, economic, cultural and educational, are not negotiable. They are part of the general structure of Ontario's society. My government will continue to try, wherever possible, practical and feasible, to increase French language services where the French-speaking population justifies that kind of activity.

We shall build a French language school in Essex County despite the inability of the school board in that region and the local opposition members to understand how important it is for Ontario and for Canada that that school be built.

We will seek to enhance, through various measures, the' survival of a distinct, creative, rich and beautiful Franco-Ontarian culture in this province. That culture will survive irrespective of what the province of Quebec may or may not choose to do either with respect to its own minorities or its own ultimate political status.

The province of Ontario faces, in the context of many of the topics upon which I have touched, a particular challenge due to our pivotal position within this nation's economy and the tremendous significance to this country's strength and unity of our economic and political vitality as a province.

What I have really come here to say to you, irrespective of what your own political affiliation may be, is that we all have a duty to ensure in the days, weeks, months and years ahead that Ontario is always prepared to provide that kind of economic, social and political leadership which contributes to national stability, national confidence and national progress.

I take pride in the decision of this government some months ago to make it perfectly clear that there could not be a movement to any semblance of a post-economic control strategy without co-operation and consultation between labour, business and government.

I do not believe that, in this day and age, there can ever be a behind-the-scenes agreement, put together in private, that would have any binding affect upon the direction and growth of our national or provincial economy. But I do know that it is high time for government and business and labour to speak a lot more frankly with each other about the problems we all face, the constraints we are all under and the ways in which we can indeed work together.

Part of the essential freedom and balance of our society is based upon the existence of powerful groups who are prepared to keep each other honest by pursuing their own interest and crying foul when they believe that to be appropriate. It would be a mistake for any multipartite approach to the economy to try and limit the counter-balancing affect of that reality.

That does not mean that government does not have a paramount responsibility to ensure that insofar as it is possible the relationship between labour and management, the relationship between management and labour and government, is not undermined by misinformation, misunderstanding and mythology. The stakes are simply too high. There are eleven governments in this country, each trying to cope with its own particular piece of the economic challenge. Whether or not we are over-governed, it is important for us all to understand that, for the average citizen of this country, all those governments form one single, large perception, which they see as being either fair or unfair, responsive, humane or otherwise.

In a sense we are all like survivors in a life raft. If ten of us are doing a good job and trying to be responsible but one is prepared to poke his oar through the bottom of the raft, then we will all, in one way or another, face the same fate.

If that applies to governments, my friends, it applies to corporations and trade unions and institutions for professional and business advancement. We are dealing with a nation that is indeed fragile, both in terms of the economic forces that bind us together and in terms of the politics which underlie our government structure.

I say to you that we in Ontario have a tremendous opportunity to begin to rebuild the national fabric of this country. We can do it through faith in ourselves and in our institutions. We can do it by ensuring that in positions of leadership in government and industry and labour there are people who care about whether or not those institutions justify that faith.

We can do it through confidence in our capacity to produce and to grow. We can do it through understanding for our fellow citizen and for the joint role we all have in building what has made Ontario particularly special, particularly prosperous and a particularly stable and secure place to live. We merely have to have the courage to give less attention to those who preach doom and gloom as a way of life and who seek to divide our society rather than unite it for their own short-term economic or political goals.

The challenge facing this country is neither one of economics nor politics. It is one of faith and confidence and self-respect. We have a lot to believe in this country for and much to respect ourselves for.

I ask all of you as citizens to understand that no one government, no one party, no one man or woman can build a national community alone. We must all put in our oar, all join in offering to do our share.

This province of ours remains the essence of opportunity and freedom, the quintessence of fairness, democracy and compassion. Let us join as citizens and as Canadians to preserve it for our children and for Canada.

The appreciation of the audience was expressed by Mr. Joseph H. Potts, C.D., Q.C., a Past President of The Empire Club of Canada.