Canadian Governance: The Challenge and the Courage to Act

August 22, 1997

Courage — the courage to tackle an unpopular issue is a recurring theme in my remarks this evening. Speaking of courage, I compliment two old friends, the colloquium Co-chairs, Gérald Beaudoin and Gordon Robertson, and the University of Ottawa and all the organizers of this timely gathering. You deserve a great deal of credit for taking on an issue which few people in Canada today are prepared to address or even think about.

During the course of today and tomorrow, you are focusing on a number of issues that go to the heart of the ongoing debate in this country about what values and ideals bind us together as a people, and about how we can best govern ourselves as Canada prepares for the 21st century. Thank you for offering me this opportunity to join in your deliberations.

Let me begin with a very personal assessment of where I believe Canada stands today on the governance question. Canada is not a perfect democracy, nor the ideal federalist state. I do believe, however, that it is without peer among the advanced countries of the world in terms of the quality of our political institutions and the civil society upon which our institutions are built. This having been said, you will readily understand why I have so little time or patience for those who argue that "Canada does not work", or that "Canada’s federalist system is broken", or that "we should redesign the country from scratch".

In the past several decades, the focus of attempts at improvements to the federation have been precisely in the areas which you, the organizers of this colloquium, have designated as principal themes: the division of powers; the ability of the federation to adapt to change; the quest for constitutional guarantees by Quebec; institutional reform centering on the Senate; the procedure for constitutional amendment; and the rights of aboriginal peoples.

Most observers would argue with some justification that progress in these areas has been meagre. But progress has not eluded us because of lack of effort. Indeed, in recent years, Canadians have been subjected to a blitz of constitutional debates and proposals, most notably those surrounding the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, and in October 1995, the Quebec referendum.

The spectacular failures associated with these grand attempts at constitution building and the lingering legacy of bitterness and division left in their wake — coupled with a Quebec referendum that came dangerously close to fulfilling independentist aspirations, have dampened the desire of leaders and electorate alike to address the national unity issue. And yet it is very much with us today, and, in some respects, dangerously so.

I am fortunate to head an organization, the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI), which has as one of its central tenets the commitment to build a stronger and more effective federation. Tonight, I will share with you some insights about how the Council sees the unity issue and what we are trying to do about it.

First, let me address the question of why it is that an organization of 150 chief executives of leading Canadian enterprises would involve itself in promoting changes to the federation. The answer lies in how we see our responsibilities as business leaders. Simply put, we regard a strong and healthy democracy and effective and accountable political institutions as enormous advantages to Canada and as essential prerequisites to sustained economic prosperity.

This is why, since the Council’s early days, we have developed policy positions on so many issues related to governance: for example, on parliamentary reform; on improvements to the public service; on the economic and social union; on the division of powers; on federal-provincial responsibilities, and on fiscal federalism. This is why we took an active role in the debates on the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, and why on the morning after the October 30, 1995 Quebec referendum, we vowed to play a constructive role in building bridges of understanding across Canada and in countering the secessionist threat in Quebec.

Now let me take you back to the sombre autumn of 1995. The federal government lay traumatized by the close referendum result. Federalist forces within Quebec were exhausted and demoralized. Attitudes across Canada towards Quebec were hardening. Political leaders were running for cover. And independentist leaders in Quebec promised certain victory next time.

Based on a unanimous resolution of Council members on the morning of October 31, we assembled a team of knowledgeable Canadians from across the country to assess the situation and consider where the country might go from here. On December 18, 1995, after six weeks of intensive study and consultations, I prepared a report and tabled it with the BCNI’s Board of Directors, the Policy Committee.¹ Among the recommendations, I urged that the federal government and the nine pro-Confederation Premiers in alliance with pro-federalist Quebecers seize the agenda and quickly push forward political reforms that would respond to Quebec’s concerns, but more broadly, set in motion changes that would be beneficial to the federation as a whole. My colleagues at the Business Council on National Issues embraced this approach and we launched the Confederation 2000 Initiative aimed at helping to build a new consensus for political change in Canada.

An important part of the Confederation 2000 Initiative were The Confederation 2000 Conferences which took place in March and May, 1995, and which assembled over 100 opinion leaders from across Canada. Many of you here tonight were active contributors at these Conferences. The Conference report, "Today and Tomorrow: An Agenda for Action", produced a remarkable consensus with specific recommendations on the rebalancing of federal-provincial responsibilities, the federal spending power, the social and economic union and the recognition of Quebec within Canada.²

Early in 1995, my colleagues in the BCNI and I had become convinced that a critical element of a new consensus for political change in Canada would have to involve Canada’s nine pro-Confederation Premiers and thus was born the idea of a "Premiers’-led initiative". Following The Confederation 2000 Conferences, small teams of BCNI chief executives joined me in calls on individual Premiers. Our message to the Premiers was clear: Ottawa alone could not solve the unity problem; the nine Premiers acting in concert could be a powerful catalyst for change; the window of opportunity for collective action on the part of the Premiers was a narrow one given Premier Bouchard’s agenda; and the initial focus of efforts should not include constitutional steps as the climate for this had to be created over time.

Following the national general election in June and the less than satisfactory outcome in Quebec, we stepped up our appeals to political leaders across the country. On June 20, the BCNI’s Policy Committee sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister.³ We expressed support for the intent of the legislation passed by Parliament to recognize Quebec’s unique place within Canada. We approved of federal efforts to improve the structure of the federation through rebalancing of powers and responsibilities. And we endorsed the government’s attempt to clarify the legal status of separation through reference to the Supreme Court. But we also went on to say that Ottawa alone could not solve the problem and appealed to the Prime Minister that he give his "heartfelt support to any worthwhile initiative that may emerge from other levels of government".

On July 15, we addressed a memorandum to the Premiers and Territorial Leaders urging them "to launch a series of initiatives aimed at bolstering the federation."⁴ As a matter of courtesy, the memorandum also was sent to Premier Bouchard.

The decision to dispatch the memorandum to the Premiers presented a formidable challenge given that we were not expected merely to urge them to act. There was an expectation among some Premiers that we would offer a blueprint for moving forward, a conceptual framework around which an eventual consensus might be built.⁵ We bravely decided to try our hand at shaping such a conceptual framework and we proceeded on the following assumptions: first, that our proposals should not be overly ambitious; second, that they should steer clear of immediate constitutional initiatives; and third, that they should seek to bridge the disparate and in some cases deeply conflicting views of the key pro-federalist actors in the country.

We laid out some basic principles that we believe should guide the evolution of the federation. Recognizing that sometimes sound principles and good intentions fail to produce a consensus in the absence of clear, specific language, we went so far as to try our hand at a draft declaration for the Premiers. This exercise also was helpful to me and my fellow BCNI Executive Committee signatories to the memorandum.⁶ We too had to subject ourselves to the discipline of matching wishes and words. Allow me to share with you the contents of the declaration.

As Premiers who have the privilege of serving in public office in the extraordinary country we call Canada, and who believe we have an important responsibility to help build a stronger community for the citizens of today and those to come, we declare as follows:

Equality within Canada

We believe that Canada is based on the shared values and experiences of individuals of many origins. As equals under the law, Canadians have created a country that finds inspiration by celebrating diversity, that builds strong communities on a foundation of respect and tolerance and that seeks progress through co-operation rather than confrontation.

We believe that just as all citizens share equal rights and responsibilities, all provinces are equal partners under the law within the federation. Provincial governments have equal opportunity to exercise all powers available to them in those areas that are or may fall within their areas of jurisdiction.

Quebec within Canada

We recognize that French-speaking Canadians have been and remain essential partners in creating our Canadian identity, and face an immense challenge in continuing to nurture their language and culture within a predominantly English-speaking North America.

We recognize that the National Assembly of Quebec, as the only provincial legislature in Canada elected by a French-speaking majority, has a particular responsibility to exercise the powers that fall within its jurisdiction to preserve and promote the unique character of Quebec’s society, as expressed through its language, culture, institutions and civil law tradition.

We believe that Quebecers and all French-speaking Canadians, who have contributed so much to our country’s development and unique personality, and who have found in Canada both inspiration and a rich fulfillment of their aspirations, share a deep and unshakeable bond with their fellow citizens across this land.

Making Canada Work Better

As leaders of our respective provinces and recognizing that effective, responsible and accountable government is a source of great advantage to all Canadians, we pledge to work closely with each other and with the federal government to make Canada work better.

We believe that the purpose of engaging in renewal of the federation is to strengthen our country and in so doing to best serve the common and diverse needs of Canadians by entrusting responsibilities to those levels of government that can carry them out most effectively within the framework of the Constitution.

We commit ourselves to reinforcing our social union as an expression of our tolerance, compassion and shared responsibilities as Canadians, and we pledge to develop and maintain the highest standards possible in education, health care and social services.

We agree that a robust economic union is a precondition for an effective federation and a sturdy social union. Accordingly, we pledge to better co-ordinate our efforts in reducing the heavy burden of public debt and taxes, and to achieve much more rapid progress in reducing barriers to the free movement of citizens, goods, services and capital within Canada.

We believe that many of the concerns expressed by Canadians today can be resolved within our existing constitutional structure and we will proceed on that basis wherever possible. We recognize, however, that the resolution of some issues will require constitutional change, and we pledge to take action in such cases as soon as the necessary conditions for success exist.

We reaffirm our commitment to consult our constituents on initiatives involving significant changes to the federation in accordance with sound democratic principles.

Working together in a spirit of goodwill, we believe that we can build on the achievements of the past 130 years to create an even better home for our children, a Canada that will stand as a pre-eminent example to the world of how a country should work.

In the memorandum to the Premiers, we urged them to be undeterred by the refusal of Premier Bouchard to participate in any discussions concerning the renewal of the federation. We appealed to them to reach out a hand of friendship and cooperation to the significant majority of Quebecers, including the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly and his party, who wish to build a better and more secure place for Quebec within Canada.

Yesterday, I was asked by a journalist to assess the outcome of the Premiers’ meeting in St. Andrews. I replied that we at the BCNI were more than satisfied: the Premiers had broken the ice and talked about national unity after all; they embraced the idea of a "Premiers’-led" initiative; they agreed to act despite the refusal of Premier Bouchard to become involved; and they demonstrated that they meant business by agreeing to quickly convene an organizational and strategy follow up meeting in Calgary on September 14 and 15.

The Premiers have acted courageously knowing full well that the road ahead will not be easy. They will have to decide on a process for moving forward and it will not necessarily be the same in every province. They will have to agree on a timetable. Most challenging of all, they will have to agree on the substance of a position that each of them can adopt and that will find support in their respective provinces.

I wish that was all they need to contend with. Unfortunately, a horde of doubters already are making themselves heard. Take for example columnist Jeffrey Simpson’s remarks in today’s The Globe and Mail.⁷ He says "Nine Canadian premiers, each fingering a box of matches, want to light a fire under the national unity debate. They risk … burning themselves and the country." Perhaps Mr. Simpson and the doubters would prefer an opening line of some future column that reads like this: "Nine Canadian premiers, each pretending that Canada had no unity problems, emerged from months of slumbering to discover that the country was no more."

As the Premiers prepare to meet in Calgary, I would offer the following advice. Let me begin with the process. We can safely assume that no Premier would dare to give formal endorsement to a position that does not have the tacit if not explicit support of his electorate. Recognizing this reality, the BCNI in our draft declaration expected the provincial governments to consult their constituents "on initiatives involving significant changes to the federation …."

Some Premiers have voiced support for a "bottom-up", grass roots approach. Others have expressed skepticism arguing that Canadians already have been subjected to an overdose of consultations on the unity issue. My own view is that consultations are indispensable but let’s put them where they most legitimately belong — within the framework of an elected and accountable legislative apparatus. But some will utter the tiresome cry, we don’t trust the politicians! Frankly, I am vastly more comfortable with consultations in the hands of those we elect than in the hands of appointed or self-appointed bodies.

And I would make another plea to the Premiers. Let’s not resort to grass roots consultations as a substitute for thoughtful and courageous leadership. One Premier last year hit the nail on the head when he said to me, "We know the issues only too well. We do not need more Royal Commissions, studies upon studies and endless consultations — what the country needs now from its political class is the guts to lead."

Let me turn now to timing. Whatever the Premiers eventually come up with, the most time-sensitive aspects of their proposals will pertain to Quebec. Premier Bouchard said that a referendum on sovereignty will follow an election in his province and contrary to conventional wisdom, I believe that this combination of events could happen sooner than we think. For this reason, I would urge the Premiers to aim for a consensus no later than the first half of 1998. Barring unforeseen events, this would give public opinion in Quebec a chance to hear and understand the message coming from Canada’s nine provinces.

And finally, a word on content: the BCNI has taken a stab at content — initially the need to agree quickly on a package that would include concrete commitments to the "rebalancing" objective, to the recognition of Quebec within Canada and to the principles of equality of individuals and of provinces under the law. But I would not want to leave you with the impression that these actions are all that we at the Council have in mind when we talk about the betterment of the federation. At least three major items of unfinished business will have to be addressed: the issue of aboriginal rights within Canada is one; another is the role of the Senate; and the third is the issue of constitutional amendment. Past experience has taught us that tackling these three issues will take time, patience and hard work. It also will require the intellectual support of people such as yourselves.

Let me conclude with a few brief observations about the trials that I expect we shall all have to face over the next couple of years. The greatest single threat by far to "peace, order and good government" in Canada is from a Quebec government determined to achieve secession in one way or another. Let’s be under no illusions: Premier Bouchard and the separatist brains-trust upon which he relies are pursuing with ruthless discipline a strategy aimed at the denigration of the Canadian state and the alienation of Quebecers from the idea of belonging to a Canada that is theirs. An important component of this strategy is a methodical campaign of disinformation concerning the benefits to Quebecers of Canadian federalism. Premier Bouchard pursues this strategy by cleverly stoking the fires of nationalism within his province and promising all the while that sovereignty can and will be achieved at minimal cost.

The response to this strategy cannot rely only on concrete betterments to the federation of the kinds we have discussed tonight. It will require a much more vigorous challenge of separatist ideology and disinformation. Federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Stéphane Dion, did just that last week with stunning effectiveness in his open letter to Premier Bouchard.⁸

The response to the separatists must also comprise an honest, dispassionate explanation of the painful realities of secession and of the sanctity of the rule of law in dealing with whatever future Quebecers may choose for themselves.⁹

And finally, we cannot disregard perhaps the most convincing weapon in the pro-unity arsenal — the powerful and compelling attraction of belonging to what I consider is the finest country in the world. But affection for Canada and pride of citizenship can only flow from citizens who genuinely appreciate its virtues.

It was for this reason that in our memorandum to the Premiers, we said that the first step to a successful national unity strategy is to affirm the greatness of Canada. Part of the Canadian malaise, we pointed out, is rooted in a reluctance or even refusal of some leaders and citizens to celebrate what Canada is and what past and current generations of Canadians have accomplished together.

In re-stating our belief that Canada is the finest country in the world, we said "Let’s give strong and unabashed voice to this reality, let’s do it often and let’s do it in every part of the country."

I know that every one of you here tonight believes this in your hearts. May your intellectual labours both today and tomorrow be inspired by this conviction.

NOTES

1. "Canadian Governance, Crisis or Renewal", Notes for remarks by Thomas d’Aquino to a Special Meeting of the Policy Committee, Business Council on National Issues, Toronto, December 18, 1995.
   
2. See "Today and Tomorrow, An Agenda for Action", Ideas and Recommendations of The Confederation 2000 Conference Participants, Ottawa, May 3 and 4, 1996.
   
3. Memorandum for The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, P.C., M.P., Prime Minister of Canada, June 20, 1997.
   
4. Memorandum for The Honourable Frank McKenna, Premier of New Brunswick and Chairman-Designate, Council of Premiers, for distribution to all Premiers and Territorial Leaders, July 15, 1997.
   
5. In a series of public interviews in July, 1997, The Honourable Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta, offered to take the proposals of the Business Council on National Issues to the Annual Conference of Premiers in St. Andrews, New Brunswick.
   
6. The Memorandum for The Honourable Frank McKenna was signed by all members of the Business Council’s Executive Committee: Chairman, Al Flood; Honorary Chairman, Guy Saint-Pierre; Vice Chairmen, Peter Bentley, Jean Monty, Ted Newall, and David O’Brien; and President and Chief Executive, Thomas d’Aquino.
   
7. Jeffrey Simpson, "The premiers risk burning the country with national unity meeting", The Globe and Mail, August 22, 1997.
   
8. The Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C., M.P., Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Letter to The Honourable Lucien Bouchard, Premier of Quebec, August 11, 1997.
   
9. See "The Case for Canada — A Perspective on Canada’s Political and Economic Future", An address by Thomas d’Aquino to The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Centre of Canadian Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C., February 13, 1997.