We have succeeded, where so many have failed, in avoiding both assimilation and separation, building an extraordinarily rich and diverse society on the foundation of two of the great cultures of the world.
Our prosperity, though not perfect, is a quantum leap above that experienced by more than 95 per cent of humankind.
After decades of fiscal mismanagement, we have become a paragon of fiscal virtue and our economic fundamentals today are among the finest in the world.
And yet, despite all that, what else do we find?
We find ourselves still in shock two and a half years later, at having almost lost a referendum, a loss that would have ruptured the country I have just described.
We find ourselves faced with the prospect of yet another referendum should the Separatist agenda prevail in the next election.
And we find ourselves in a situation in the rest of Canada where the broad will to defend the cause of unity is still, I fear, far too weak and hesitant and conditional.
Now, some may say I am being too pessimistic, too negative.
After all, the last referendum was won, wasn't it?
The support for sovereignty has slipped, hasn't it?
The Calgary Declaration will help save us, won't it?
Real steps are being taken to prove the federation can function better, aren't they?
Well, to those willing to hang the future of the country on those hooks alone, I say, I hope you’re right.
But, today, I have some questions in return.
Yes, the last referendum was won, but was that not a hollow victory, and what are the implications for the voting patterns of newly enfranchised Quebeckers with the simple passage of five or six years?
Yes, support for sovereignty seems, in some polls, to be slipping, but isn't support still much higher than in the period before the last referendum?
Yes, the Calgary Declaration is a step forward, but it is only a step -- and I fear that as time passes we may discover how many of its friends fall away with the fair weather.
And yes, progress has been made, legally and administratively, to make the federation function better, but surely, if there is another referendum, it will be decided on the basis of hearts and minds, not memoranda of understanding?
Now, some of you may disagree with the specifics of what I have just said, but I doubt if any of you would assert that a victory in another referendum is a sure thing. Therefore, the issue is how do we improve the prospects.
Of course, there is no magic bullet, but let me put forward a series of propositions, beginning with some basics.
First, we need to work hard now, not later. There is no such thing as the right moment. The moment is now.
Secondly, while this is very much about Quebec and about decisions Quebeckers themselves will make, it is also, in a profound sense, about the conduct and comportment of other Canadians. If Quebeckers are to decide whom they want to be, part of that choice will be about whom they don't want to be, whom they are willing to leave behind. Another referendum will be, and should be, about Canada.
Thirdly, while it is, on the face of it, always valid to propose changes that address the specific needs of various parts of our society, I think it is essential that we nip in the bud any notion that we should be heading towards some sort of omnibus round of change -- the kind that seemed to be the final undoing of the Charlottetown process.
Already, one hears ominous murmurings that a Triple-E Senate or other such major reforms – much as they may be valid in and of themselves – should be brought forward once again.
I say NO.
To turn this into a three or four or five ring circus would be wrong. It would overload the agenda. It would invite ultimatums. And, most importantly, it would dilute if not destroy what I believe the central message must be: that Quebec is wanted, for what it is, and wants to become, within Canada; that this is reward enough without the need to solve all our problems at once.
A final point.
I believe many of us have become hostage to a pervasive feeling that we must shy away from reality. That calling it as we see it is impolite. That it is better, perhaps, simply to be quiet and go about our business.
I apologize for being so blunt. But I am appalled by the self-censorship that has seeped into this debate. Too many, I believe, are willing to leave unchallenged the emotions and prejudices and fairy tales that are disguised as received truths.
Perhaps it is fatigue. Perhaps it is fear of reprisal. Perhaps it is a sense of inevitable failure. I simply say that it is in what we choose to declare -- and what we refuse to declare – that the seeds of victory or failure will be sown.
What, then, should be the substance of those declarations? Where does our case lie? What needs to be said – and done – inside Quebec and outside? The answers to those questions lie in part, I believe in a cold look at where we failed last time.
Where did we fail?
We failed to make the case convincingly that the vote was not about creating a new country – but about rejecting Canada, not about validating the Quebec identity but about rejecting the Canadian part of the identity the vast majority of Quebeckers share.
Nous n'avons pas su établir clairement que le Canada n'est pas un pays étranger. Que les valeurs qu'il renferme et qu'il entretient sont les mêmes valeurs que celles qui sont chères aux Québécois. Que le Canada n'a pas été bâti en dépit du Québec, mais grâce à lui, bref, que le Canada appartient au Québec.
We failed to confront the presumption so successfully sold by separatists that they are the true ark of Quebec's destiny, the true interpreters of its history, the sole guarantors of its values and accomplishments – saints, where others are villains.
We failed to bring the issue out of the past to challenge the myths of perpetual humiliation, oppression and victimization. To challenge strongly enough what was so clearly false. To say that this is about the future and our potential together as Canadians, not about the past.
I believe we outside Quebec failed to convincingly and unconditionally extend a welcoming hand of friendship and respect. Not of grudging acceptance or tight-lipped tolerance but of genuine regard for the society that has in so many ways defined who we are as Canadians – and who we are not. Too much of what we did do reeked of last-minute desperation.
And we failed, I believe, the test of "truth and consequences". Too many of us failed to talk about the costs of splitting up and heeded instead the frankly, self-serving separatist warnings that to talk about the costs was to issue threats. And we allowed the illusion of partnership to endure when it was very clear – even clearer today, that the game was separation, and partnership the Trojan Horse.
Based on all that, then, what do we require for the future?
What we need, above all else, is clarity.
We need clarity on the costs of separation. Not distortion. Not exaggeration. They're not needed. We simply need to point out what every study says – that on our currency, on interest rates, on investment, the world will watch and the world will act. That investors don’t have confidence in countries that don’t have confidence in themselves.
And let me be clear. Those costs, while borne primarily by Quebeckers, will also be shouldered by all Canadians, from St. John’s to Victoria.
We need clarity on the issue of partnership. That it simply won't happen -- can't happen -- the way the separatists pretend that it could. That countries don’t readily embrace those who have just rejected them.
We need clarity on what Quebec would lose -- membership in the G-7, in APEC, and, yes, in NAFTA -- and that the acquisition of sovereignty in law would in many cases mean the loss of sovereignty in fact. Sovereignty given to other Canadians to decide on the nature of whatever co-operation would emerge; sovereignty given to the Bank of Canada to determine the monetary policy of Quebec; sovereignty given to foreign investors and others who would determine how high Quebec interest rates would have to go; and sovereignty to Americans, Mexicans and Canadians to decide if and on what terms Quebec would be admitted to the North American trading partnership.
We need clarity on history, on identity, on shared and common values. The separatists thrive on the sense that Quebeckers are different, not only in language but in spirit – when the love of freedom and the pursuit of fairness and the exercise of tolerance are found everywhere across this land.
The separatists thrive on pretending that Canadian history is not Quebec history, except when it comes to the conquest, when in fact Confederation owes its final structure less to John A. MacDonald than to George Etienne Cartier, when French explorers and entrepreneurs played such a role in opening up this great land, when so many of the social programs in which Quebeckers – and other Canadians – take pride were co-authored by Quebeckers, and when we have fought together in two world wars, and served as peacekeepers since in every corner of the world.
We need clarity on the issue of what precisely Quebec has failed to accomplish with Canada, of what precisely it could do outside that it cannot do within.
The Separatists don the cloak of their predecessors, but Quebeckers must be told that most of Quebec's leaders did not succeed by walking away from the table, but by sitting at it. Premier Godbout, who sat at the table when Unemployment Insurance was created. Premiers Sauvé and Lesage who formed a partnership with the Government of Canada to bring hospital insurance to Quebeckers. Premier Lesage who moved forward, with the Government of Canada, co-operatively, to create the Quebec Pension Plan, which in turn led to the Caisse de dépôt. Premier Bourassa who, working with his Canadian partners, completed the task of bringing health insurance to Quebec, who worked to have Quebec's uniqueness recognized on family allowances, who negotiated Quebec's large role on immigration.
The Separatists say Quebec and Canada can agree on nothing. But, time and again, we have. We must point to that real history and tear down the notion that Quebec's greatest moments arose when it picked up the ball and went home.
The question needs to be posed squarely: How is modern Quebec being held back? What is there of abiding importance to its citizens that Quebec cannot do now but a separate Quebec could accomplish? And how does that stack up to the price that would be paid?
Within Canada, Quebec left behind the restraints of the past and pursued, within Canada, the Quiet Revolution, creating extraordinary institutions of economic growth and social progress.
Within Canada, Quebec has succeeded in putting its economy firmly in the hands of Quebeckers.
Within Canada, the French language and culture has not only survived. It has thrived.
Clarity. Common sense. Logic.
And, yes, emotion. This issue won't be decided in Canada's favour if all who are opposed to separation look like auditors, lawyers or even bankers.
We've been at the sovereignty debate so long that it has assumed a ritualistic rhythm, a detachment, a character that would be bizarre were its possible consequences not so tragic.
Most Quebeckers and most Canadians are tired of this issue, and they are leaving the field open to the extremists.
What passes for debate has become a hurling back and forth of rhetoric, not of substance.
I am concerned about the impact of fatigue, of the possibility that people might say, all right, let's just do it if that will keep them quiet. And the possibility, just as worrisome, that separatism, for too many, has passed from being trendy, to being a sort of symbol of social acceptance -- not thought about, not questioned, but simply worn like a sweater or a pair of shoes.
I believe our greatest challenge is to make this issue real again, one that focusses on real values and real lives.
Because we know, when that happens, the discussion assumes an entirely different tone. Poll after poll shows that most Quebeckers have a profound attachment to Canada and what it stands for. That the values and priorities they share are shared by other Canadians. That they don't want to have to choose between their Canadian and Quebec identity. And yet, too many believe that they must, that they can't start being full Quebeckers unless they stop being Canadian.
And it is here where my remarks turn directly to the rest of Canada.
Rightly or wrongly, the result of real events or the manipulation of myth, the real problem is that many Quebeckers do not feel they are wanted here, as Canadians, that they are strangers in this land.
Of course that's not true. But the truth does not matter if Quebeckers do not see it.
The repatriation of the Constitution did serious damage. So too did failure to pass Meech Lake. So too today is the cynical, destructive elevation of the notion that equality in law requires uniformity in treatment, a proposition as fundamentally intolerant, ultimately ruinous and non-Canadian as any that has entered our contemporary discourse.
For those reasons and others, there is a sense, I believe, among many Quebeckers, that we in this country are at best, simply co-existing; at worst, two scorpions in a jar. That the will to reach out is not there, nor the understanding nor acceptance of the legitimacy of the aspirations of the majority of the Quebec people.
Outside of Quebec there is a profound misattribution of motives. The desire to protect and develop Quebecois culture is not some plot to take away the rights of others, but an understandable desire to preserve themselves.
That basic fact is simply not understood well enough or widely enough outside Quebec.
I do not disparage – far from it – the Calgary Declaration. I do not belittle for one minute the very real efforts the federal government – together with the provinces – is making to demonstrate that the federation, as it always has, can improve, change, work better.
But at some point, the rest of Canada is going to have to summon the collective will -- the political gumption -- to make an unambiguous gesture of welcome, of recognition, of understanding -- one that is designed to stand for the ages, not one that can be ignored or set aside for reasons of convenience or political whim.
Too often, I fear we are not responding to the real question, to the real need.
Reasonable Quebeckers talk about clear recognition of the distinct society. Our tendency up to now has often been to offer them jurisdiction over forestry instead. It's as if a hand is being reached out and we respond, not with a handshake, but a set of steak knives.
What on earth is wrong or costly about agreeing formally that the Courts would take into account the linguistic, cultural and legal uniqueness of Quebec in interpreting fundamental law as it applies within this province -- something the Supreme Court already practices and agrees is proper?
What on earth is so onerous about putting into the fundamental law of the land something which the Supreme Court Act already stipulates -- that three of its judges must come from Quebec, a reflection of Quebec's unique use of the Civil Code?
Why not formalize existing understandings or legislation on immigration and on the veto?
Is the price too high? Indeed, is this a price at all -- when not one right of one Canadian or one power of one province outside Quebec would be affected at all, when these steps only confirm the essence of principles that precede Confederation.
I have addressed the issue today of unity from a variety of perspectives -- of law, of logic, of cost and consequences.
But one thing troubles me more than anything else.
If we fail, this generation, to sustain the tolerance and acceptance of diversity that has been the hallmark of this land – if we fail that test over the question of Quebec – what would be the impact, not on our geography or our borders, but on our psychology, on our being.
With our sense of solidarity shattered, our spirit broken, who else would feel the cold shoulder of disrespect?
I worry about that outside Quebec.
And I worry about that inside Quebec.
I worry about the profound resentment and shame that millions of other Canadians would feel if they were told their country had been taken from them.
And I worry about the deep wounds and divisions that would be created here if millions of Quebeckers who wanted to retain it were told they must give up their Canadian identity.
When all is said and done, the real question today is, is our spirit still large enough for this large land?
I believe it is, but that spirit must be summoned, not assumed. It must be demonstrated, not just declared.
Throughout our history we have fought a long, enduring battle between withdrawing inward and looking outward, between dwelling on past mistakes and focussing on future potential, between seeing difference as defect, and turning diversity into the unparalleled strength it can be. Often we have failed. More often, though, we have succeeded.
One of the successes, which pre-dates this country, was Britain's Quebec Act of 1774, which repealed the flaws of the Royal Proclamation eleven years earlier. That proclamation had threatened to force British laws and British customs on a colony of Quebec citizens an ocean away. The Quebec Act, an extraordinary achievement for its time, put in law the respect of Quebec law and religion and system of land ownership.
Recently I was reminded, that that very same year, the Continental Congress of America invited Quebec to join them. They believed their invitation would be taken up. It was not. Quebeckers knew then that their society was better respected here.
Our challenge now is to rekindle that realization. To demonstrate that Canada is the 'sovereignty association' that succeeds, the 'partnership' that protects -- a 'real country' that respects all its parts, a community not of convenience but conviction.
"Concordia Salus". "De la concorde vient le salut". That is Montreal's motto. In that motto lies our mission today.
