CAN WE KEEP CANADA TOGETHER ?
Dr. Desmond P. Morton

The following is a speech given by Dr. Desmond Morton, Director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, to a meeting of Dialogue Canada at the University of Victoria, March 23, 1996, 4.00 p.m.

Current Situation
In its year-end survey, Maclean's found that a lot of Canadians believe that their country won't last in its present form to the end of the century - less than four years from now. They might be right. Ottawa's recently-legislated concessions, by common consent, were too little, too late - and more than most non-Quebecers, especially British Columbians, would accept. In Quebec, sovereignty has a little more support than it did on October 30th, and the province's most popular politician is now in charge. Some premiers and the prime minister have seemed indifferent to unity issues.

What about the Rest of Canada? If Quebec voted to secede, say in late 1998, how long would the ROC last? Would you and Alberta stick around in a Canada where Ontario had half the population? Would Mike Harris's Ontarians tax themselves to support the four Atlantic provinces or Manitoba and Saskatchewan? I am told that British Columbians already have their doubts.

Backed by most premiers, Preston Manning insists that all Canadian provinces are equal. It sounds nice. Will it look nice when four equal provinces are separated from five other equal provinces by the resentful bulk of an independent but resentful Quebec? And resentful it will be, as the glowing promises of the sovereigntists fade. As ever, Canada will serve as Quebec's scapegoat for shattered illusions. Nothing is more fatuous that the belief, among separatists on both side of the Ottawa River, that sovereignty will solve the Quebec-Canada problem. Premier Bouchard's insistence that Quebec's problems with the investment community are all "in the heads" of business ignores the fact that that is precisely where almost all business investment decisions are made.

But ranking next in fatuity to the illusions of Quebec sovereigntists are those that claim that Canada can rid itself of Quebec without consequences. Canada's status, reputation and economic stability will all be affected. If the country is divisible, the value of the Canadian dollar is not, and we are talking drastic shrinkage in the real value of savings and the real costs of debt. If a sovereign Quebec would be even more internationally indebted than Canada, we are both close to the top of that league table. That affects British Columbians where it hurts - in retirement incomes.

Incidentally, when it comes to thinking about the unthinkable, British Columbians may take their affluence as a God-given certainty, but how solid is Ontario's own wealth? There were always three pillars to Ontario's prosperity: cheap and available energy, an efficient education system, buttressed by a flood of skilled immigrants, and some of the wealthiest, most productive states in the Union as immediate neighbours. In case you haven't looked, Ontario Hydro supplies the second most costly power on the continent. Skilled immigrants stay in Europe. Ontario schools can't even teach self-esteem, and a quarter of their funding has been cut this year. Ontario's once-wealthy neighbours, Michigan, Ohio and upstate New York are part of the Rust Belt. Currently the auto industry is a quarter of Ontario's GPP. Without Quebec as part of the market, how long would the Canada-U.S. Auto Trade Pact last?

The Good News
Unlike death and taxes, the break-up of Canada, with all the attendant disasters, is not inevitable. It will happen because you and I, individual Canadians and Quebecois, deliberately ignore realities, reject compromise and wilfully hand on to our children a diminished and perhaps a shattered Canada. Those children will be right to look at us as a generation that failed; a stupid, selfish and destructive generation. We will lose the Canada we have inherited. Since we are not stupid or blind, let's consider our options.

Our Options
As of now, Canadians have three choices. We can (a), like Guy Bertrand and McGill law professor Stephen Scott, simply turn to the law and, ultimately, to force to keep Quebec in Canada. We can (b), like Preston Manning and many others, academics as much as rednecks, prepare ourselves for a messy divorce. Or (c), we can do what it takes to make federalism acceptable to most Quebecers.

1. Secession is Illegal
Having stupidly accepted the validity of a unilaterally managed secession process, would Canadians hold Quebec by force? In international law, the only way to end a unilateral declaration of independence is by coercion or persuasion. If persuasion fails, what about coercion? When we planned Confederation, Americans were ending a Civil War that cost 600,000 of their 30 million people. Have memories of using force on fellow Canadians in 1837-38, 1885 and 1918 faded? If the history of our own century is any guide, even extracting parts of Quebec, as Bercuson and Cooper proposed in Deconfederation is a recipe for bitter, enduring conflict. (Canadians might remember that, by order of Marcel Masse as minister of national defence, most of Canada's military stores are now located in the heart of separatist east end Montreal.) We have seen that truth every night in Bosnia, Croatia, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland and, if CNN cared to go there, along the southern fringe of the old USSR. Encouraging partition, whether among West End Montrealers or Northern Cree, is incitement to violence.

2. Canada without Quebec
If a divorce looks good to you, look again. If Quebec leaves unilaterally - and who believes that ten or even seven provinces could ever agree on constitutional procedures? - it gets some wonderful benefits. It gains all the federal assets on its territory, from jet fighters to federal bank deposits. Canada inherits all the liabilities, from M.P's pensions to the National Debt. That's what happened in Slovenia, which left while Yugoslavia was busy battling Croatia, and in Norway in 1905. If Quebec agrees to pay its share, we will have to keep the former province prosperous enough to pay. Meanwhile a shrunken Canada will have a weaker dollar, imperilled trade agreements like the Auto Pact, and a resentful foreign country in our midst. Imagine a divorce where the former couple has to share the bathroom. President Clinton got it right on his last visit: What kind of message does a broken Canada send to the world? We preach compromise and co-operation overseas but we need to practise it more at home. As for the rest of the country dissolving, no one will escape serious damage. In this sense, Canada is more divisible than its dollar. Economists tell me to expect a 50 cent dollar. That's as much a B.C. problem as one for Quebec or Ontario.

3. Persuasion and Accommodation
The Prime Minister has offered an obvious list. It should have caused no pain; frankly, it also gave little satisfaction. Is there something more? Given the options, what about exploring what Quebec's politicians mean by association? Our ancestors in 1864 were willing to explore the vast adventure of Confederation. Our crisis is no smaller. Have we so much less vision, imagination and courage than those middle-class white males in morning coats? We will look wiser to our children and the world if we can find arrangements that allow Canada to continue to be that wonderful country that most Canadians - and most Quebecers - believe to be the best in the world. Remember that 73% tell pollsters that they have a deep affinity for Canada. It is their country too. Most of them are not ready to give up on Canada, though many Canadians seem ready to give up on them.

Let's face something else. What devours the heart of the Quebec-Canada relationship is a cancer most Quebecois will recognize and most other Canadians will instinctively deny: a lack of respect. This is what kills marriages and it has rotted the bonds of Confederation. Quebecois felt the contempt of the majority for trying to save Louis Riel in 1885, when their young men were conscripted for war in 1917 and 1944, and again in 1982 when a Quebec-born prime minister lined up nine provinces against them to get his Charter. Again in 1990, Quebecer's minimum demands were scuttled by a provincial premier piqued by Brian Mulroney's tasteless talk of "rolling the dice." And I think that much of the discussion since October 30th, including those who talk of "scaring" Quebecers out of separatism with tough talk and threat of partition, also continues that alienating tradition of disrespect.

Respect doesn't mean grovelling. By no means every Quebec grievance is justified. But respect is fundamental in a relationship. So is the generosity of spirit Canadians have lacked in this mean decade. With over a millennium of federalism - and the highest living standard in the world - the Swiss confess that they always grant their minorities more than their numbers warrant and, when they are wise, they don't even wait to be asked. That is a lesson for us.

Quebec's psychology is not a mystery, save to those who cannot see or listen - and between the curvature of the earth and a prime minister's office wedded to Trudeau's memory, visual and hearing problems are epidemic in important places. This will, however, be hard to explain to our children when they ask us what happened to their country. Besides respect, we should understand the Quebecois need for security in their language and culture and their view of Confederation as a pact and partnership between two equals.

Where are the Patriots?
I believe in Canada and so do you. But the toughest, most enduring believers live in Quebec and speak French. A year ago, I went to a dinner in the armouries of French Canada's oldest, proudest regiment, the Fusiliers de Mont Royal. French-speaking officers from Montreal regiments had gathered to support a military museum for the city. They were a diverse group, Asian, African, European, mostly what we know as "Canadiens and Canadiennes de souche". When it came time to conclude with the National Anthem, they sang it with a volume and passion I have never heard equalled.

Remember that Quebec's federalists have been told by their editors and journalists and the writers and the teachers and professors and politicians that Canada is a failure and a fraud, a source of oppression and treachery, a drain on their finances. Among their family, their friends, their customers and fellow workers, they suffer abuse. Yet they stand up for this country, defend it at home, at work, and on doorsteps. And how often do we, the friends of Canada, tell them that Quebec must take it or leave it, that Quebecers are whiners and complainers, that Quebec is always demanding and always getting, while the rest of us are always giving? When, since 1980, when Quebec voted 60 to 40, has Quebec had what it wanted from Canada? They enrich our country; they deserve our support. Many believe we care about them; they want us to listen to them and realize their contribution. They have done much to create Canada and it may not long survive their departure.

Conclusion
Re-uniting Canada won't be easy. Quebec separatists won't easily forget their dream of nationhood. Some Canadians don't want Quebec. Some people will look for federalist saviours or Bouchard's magic wand. But who ever promised it would be easy? The great Edward Blake, at Aurora in 1874, promised Canadians an arduous destiny. Better an arduous destiny than no destiny at all.

We are only effective among people we influence. We owe it to ourselves to gain an adult knowledge and understanding of our country and its unity issues so we can be a source of information and appreciation for our family, friends and all those we contact.