WHO ARE WE? WHERE ARE WE GOING?
by Jacques Parizeau, October, 1996

I don't wish to discuss in a precise or detailed way the events that have occurred on the political stage in the last year. I must say however that each time I hear reference to a ‘plan’ aimed at making another referendum illegal, I smile. If they insist absolutely on imposing on us a referendum election . . . Come on, let's turn our minds to serious matters.

It's necessary to return to two basic and essential questions: "Who are we?" and "Where are we going?"

Last year's referendum greatly clarified matters: 61 per cent of francophones voted Yes. On the Island of Montreal, 69 per cent voted Yes. Francophones represent 83 per cent of Quebec's population. For once, the answer is clear: it isn't unanimous but in a democracy one must be wary of unanimity. The majority of francophone Quebecers want Quebec to become a country. They chose their identity and their country.

As for Quebecers other than francophones (17 per cent of the population) nearly everyone voted No.

For certain groups, it's entirely understandable. They prefer to remain a part of the Canadian majority rather than become a minority in Quebec. Their interest dictates this attitude. Until a referendum is won, they will be what they have been. Afterwards, they will adapt. Until then, they are Canadian and proud of it.

So what about the Quebec people? It is made up essentially of francophones (whatever their origin) who share a unique culture. Minorities have been added and undeniably enriched the Quebec culture. Besides the aboriginal peoples, who form distinct nations, old-stock or immigrant English-Canadians who almost entirely want to remain Canadian will become part of the Quebec people at their own rhythm after sovereignty. That is our hope, in any case. A Quebecer is anyone who wants to be one.

It is not astonishing in itself that the government now talks only rarely of Quebec sovereignty. Letting people catch their breath can be a tactic for a while. No doubt because sovereignty continues to be attacked but is not defended, popular support is falling in the polls. We've lived that before. It is reversible. But we mustn't wait too long. The longer the slide lasts, the more difficult it is to turn around.

In the same way, it's natural for the new government to want to make peace with anglophones, especially anglophone businesspeople. It's not the first government to do it and won't be the last. I myself tried too often because I didn't understand. Nothing usually comes of it all: the interests are too divergent.

One simply mustn't give too much in exchange for promises to come. The Galganov episode, at the same time ridiculous and symbolic, after the Centaur Theatre speech calmed down the game.

What we must avoid is the belief that improved relations with Montreal's English community is a requirement to creating jobs and raising capital. That hasn't been true for a long time (30 or 40 years).

What I found most disturbing in events since the the referendum is the budgetary goal the government has set itself: reducing the deficit to zero.

Many of the smaller Canadian provinces are currently eliminating their deficit, but given the nature of their operations and the absence of certain responsibilities, it is easier for them to bring the deficit down to zero than for Ontario, for example, Quebec or British Columbia.

When we came to power in 1994, we promised to eliminate the deficit of operating expenses, that is borrowing to pay for the groceries, but not the deficit arising from investment. The economy is too weak for that. And after all, it is not shameful to have a mortgage on one's home.

At the beginning of 1996, the Quebec government changed that goal, in a sense hardening it. We would now aim to completely eliminate the deficit over a period slightly longer than the original time frame. That was setting a high standard.

The finance minister prepared revenue projections based on a growth rate of one per cent, which appeared conservative at the time. Today these projections seem farfetched. We risk falling into a familiar spiral: we cut, expected revenues fall, we cut again, they fall again. I believe that by taking on too much, we affect the health of the economy.

I don't like the compliments the Quebec government is receiving these days from some ‘leading businessmen’ (there are no women at that level), historic opponents of sovereignty.

We know now we can stand up to economic propaganda and to fearmongering. They have consistently been aimed at francophones, yet they voted Yes with a clear majority a year ago.

But we must take care not to hurt ourselves or our cause or remove hope from those whose future depends on it.

Morosity is a bad counselor. We must regain the will to move. There are hurdles, of course. There always are when you want to change anything. We mustn't minimize them but we mustn't exaggerate them either.