CANADA: A NEIGHBOUR IN PROFOUND TRANSITION The Honourable W. David Angus, QC   John’s Island Forum Vero Beach, Florida November 13, 1995

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, You have invited me to share with you today my thoughts on the profound and dramatic changes taking place in my native Canada. Marion Bruckner of your Committee suggested to me last November that I might consider using as an inspiration for my remarks Lansing Lamont’s best-selling text “Breakup: The Coming End of Canada and the Stakes for America”. Marion must have had insider information. For just two weeks ago today, Canada, as we know it, came to the precipice of disarray! My nation virtually came within a whisker of “BREAK UP”. By the frighteningly narrow margin of 50.57 to 49.43 percent, just under 5 million voters in the Province of Québec voted in a Referendum “NO” to separation or secession from Canada. The voter turn-out was 94%. The question was not a simple “to separate or not to separate?”, but the net result was the same. Since late August, the Québec Referendum called by Quebec’s separatist PQ Government has been the “only game in town” in my country, especially in Québec, where I have lived for almost 50 years. We have experienced a roller-coaster of emotions. There have been exhilarating highs and devastating lows. Supporters of both the “NO” and the “YES” sides have felt heartache, anxiety, hope, despair, relief, excitement, happiness, anger and outrage - the whole emotional spectrum! A sullen and unpleasant mood now prevails and a delicate and uncertain situation exists. Based on the numbers, nothing has been resolved although Canada has survived and has been given a brief reprieve, a kind of “last chance” for Canada. As recently as October 6th, the “NO” or “federalist” side’s private polling was showing them ahead by as much as 65% to 35% and the “YES” or “separatist / sovereignist” side’s campaign was foundering dismally. A false sense of security was in place and affecting the “NO” campaign, keeping it dull and low-key. Many prominent and articulate federalists who wanted to get involved, including former Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney were requested to remain silent and sit on the sidelines. But, by October 23rd, a complete and dramatic turn-around had taken place. The “YES” forces had drawn even with or slightly ahead of the “NO”. Polling data projected the “YES” as being 6 points ahead and improving, with a week left in the campaign and with 15% of the electorate still showing up as “undecided”. This amazing turn-around had started on October 7th, when Québec Premier Jacques Parizeau stepped down as leader of the “YES” or “OUI” forces and was replaced by the charismatic and articulate Lucien Bouchard, Leader of the Bloc québécois, the Official Opposition Party in the Federal Parliament in Ottawa. Bouchard immediately elevated the campaign to the emotional Québec nationalist plane, appealing to Québécois to ignore the federalist prophets of doom with their dry, boring and false economic arguments for federalism. He asked Québécois to get off their knees and to assert their individuality as a “people” in quest of their own true homeland. The battle cry became one of “No more begging to Ottawa! We have been betrayed over and over again, especially by Prime Minister Chrétien. All our demands have been met with a resounding “NON”. We will not accept “NON” anymore. For us, it’s “YES”, “OUI” for our own identity and sovereignty. We will never again negotiate with Canada until we are a sovereign nation.” Mr. Bouchard’s appeal was what the restless and discouraged Québec nationalists were ready to hear and they started rallying to the “YES” side in droves. Indeed, many francophone federalists joined the “YES” camp because the demagogic Bouchard somehow caused them to believe that a “YES” victory would not in fact mean separation, but rather a better and happier life for them still within Canada. The “NO” side failed for at least two weeks to recognize what was happening or to adjust to this radical change in “OUI” side strategy and continued, in my view, to talk over the heads of the people, especially the key group of “soft nationalists” and the undecided voters, with dry economic arguments and messages of fear about how a separate Québec would be an isolated backwater characterized by poverty and economic stagnation. An element of panic set in. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien broke down in tears before his Liberal Party National Caucus on Wednesday, October 25th. The federal Government decided to exercise emergency provisions of Canada’s National Broadcasting Act and at 7:00 p.m. that evening the Prime Minister went on National Television, pleading with Quebecers to vote “NO” and extolling the virtues of Canada and of keeping the nation together. He made vague promises of constitutional and other needed changes which he had previously steadfastly refused even to consider or discuss. But, in a masterful “réplique” to the Prime Minister’s address, the leader of the “YES” forces, Lucien Bouchard, ridiculed the Prime Minister and said he and other federalist leaders could not be trusted. He urged “les Québécois” to take a leap of faith and vote “OUI”. He kept the momentum going and stirred the hearts of his followers with a litany of half-truths and distorted reality. He and the other separatist leaders built on these sentiments at a giant “OUI” rally later that evening. That Wednesday night was the high-point of the “YES” campaign! The separatist leaders were brimming with confidence, even overconfidence; they sensed that an historic victory was at hand. But, other powerful forces were at work. Now, the attention of all Canadians was engaged. We are losing our country by default, they said. We are not prepared to let that happen! There was a tremendous outpouring of emotion. “We love you Québec - Please stay in Canada” rallies were held in cities, towns and villages across the nation. There was an awesome surge of “O Canada” singing and maple-leaf flag waving. On Friday, October 27th, tens of thousands of Canadians from outside Québec flocked to Montreal from as far away as The Yukon and British Columbia to take part in a massive Pro-Canada rally in Place du Canada, (just outside the building where I work). By 1:00 p.m., there were more than 50,000 “NO” enthusiasts gathered in the square and surrounding streets, carrying huge Canadian flags, banners and placards and waving hundreds of hand-held fleur de lys and maple-leaf flags. The people, ordinary Canadians, were taking over the “NO” campaign. The Prime Minister and other “NO” side Leaders addressed the excited throngs with upbeat pro-Canada speeches, praising the glories of Canada and its great traditions. There was no fear-mongering or economic lecturing, but there were genuine sounding promises of change from all three speakers. The tone was entirely new and positive. The Leaders were responding to the spontaneous surge of Canadian patriotism from the people and the urgent call for meaningful change that was inherent in their message. The atmosphere and mood were patriotic, electric, happy and exciting, although remarkably peaceful and orderly. The demonstration ended just before 2:00 p.m. with the huge crowd spontaneously breaking into song, belting out our national anthem “O Canada”, in English and in French. Not a dry eye could be seen! This powerful outpouring of Canadian nationalism and patriotism was uncharacteristic of normally reserved Canadians. Much like the American reaction to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941, the sleeping giant of Canadian nationalism had been awakened. An overwhelming and passionate sentiment of national pride and love of country was released from the national bosom! The “NO” campaign was back on the rails. The separatist momentum was arrested and even reversed. Subsequent polling showed that over the October 28th-29th weekend, the “NO” numbers improved dramatically. By Monday morning, when the Referendum polling stations opened, the pollsters and pundits were unanimous in saying that although the “YES” had won the campaign, the outcome of the actual vote was now suddenly too close to call and they were predicting a dead heat. They were right on the money! The “NO” forces had snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by a hair’s breadth. You can’t get much closer than one percentage point, a margin of only some 55,000 votes. In reality though, the margin was wider. About 60% of francophone voters supported the “YES”, but perhaps a third of these did not believe they were voting for separation. And some 87,000 ballots were rejected. There were persistent allegations of electoral fraud in strongly “allophone” or ethnic polling areas, perpetrated by officials of the “YES” side trying to limit the “NO” vote. Such allegations appear to have merit and the scandal is under serious investigation by Québec’s Chief Electoral Officer. It was during the first phase of the Referendum campaign that certain disturbing elements of intolerance became evident in the underlying attitudes of the hard-line Québec separatists or sovereignists. First, it was hinted by influential “YES” campaign leaders that it would have been preferable to restrict the vote to “old stock” Québécois or “les Québécois de vieille souche”, “les francophones pure laine”. Such racist overtones sent shivers up and down the spines of many Quebecers, allophones, anglophones and francophones alike. Then Lucien Bouchard deplored the low birth rate of white francophone women, “les vraies Québécoises”, as opposed to that of Québec women of other “races” or speaking other languages. Bouchard denied being either a sexist or a racist, but the “cat was out of the bag”. On election night, Premier Jacques Parizeau bitterly blamed “money and the ethnic vote” for the result and he refused to accept the verdict of the voters. Previously proclaiming a strong belief in democracy and saying that 50% plus one vote would be sufficient to justify independence, he now did an about-face and argued that the “NO” had not been victorious. An element of hypocrisy shone through loud and clear! In my view, such unseemly and undemocratic behaviour has dealt a severe blow to the separatist cause and “turned off” a substantial number of “soft” nationalists and other francophones who voted “YES” on October 30th. The intolerance factor, combined with the strong outpouring of pro-Canada and pro-Québec sentiment and the promise of change from Prime Minister Chrétien and the other “NO” leaders, has served to reduce the core separatist vote for now back to its traditional 30% level or below. The inherent decency, fairness, democracy and common sense of ordinary French Canadians has been awakened. I will now endeavour to explain why and how Canada, a country voted by both the United Nations and the OECD on more than one occasion recently as the best country in the world to live in, a modern nation active in the international money markets, can possibly get to the unthinkable point of splitting apart. For better perspective, first let me situate Canada vis-à-vis the USA. Canada and the United States have been friendly and peaceful neighbours for some 200 years. I think it fair to say that Canadians and Americans alike are extremely proud of and cherish our 3,250 miles of undefended border and the fact we have lived together, side by side, in peace and friendship for such a long time. We now share, with Mexico, a North American free-trading zone. Canada and the USA are today each other’s number one trading partners and there is a two-way exchange daily between our two countries involving goods and services worth at least 750 million US dollars. However, despite our warm friendship and cooperative relationships and the many similarities between our nations and our peoples, Canada and Canadians are profoundly different from the USA and Americans. And these differences go a long way towards explaining Canada’s precarious situation today. Pierre Trudeau used to say: “Living next to the United States is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered the beast, one is affected by its every twitch and grunt”! It could also be said, “Canada’s situation vis-à-vis the US is something like living with your spouse. It is frequently difficult and even irritating to live together, and yet it is impossible to live apart”. Although both the USA and Canada have developed multicultural societies, the process has been markedly different in each nation. You Americans have practised the “melting pot” philosophy and “American First”, whereas we Canadians have been proponents more of the “cultural mosaic” idea. We have encouraged diversity and have not promoted a uniform Canadian identity. This policy has been costly and divisive for our nation and has become a major irritant in Canada’s national unity debate. In order fully to understand how the Québec independence movement has developed over the years and come to such a startling head in the recent Referendum, one also needs to look at Canadian history. Clearly, there is not time this morning to do any meaningful historical review, but let me try to highlight certain key events. Canada was formally created in 1867 with the enactment by the British Parliament of The British North America Act. Canada’s Confederation was a delicate, but brilliant compromise between English and French Canadians following years of bitter negotiations and struggles over two and a half centuries of “Canadian” colonial history. Although Jacques Cartier discovered Canada in 1534, little happened until Champlain created New France in 1603. A French-speaking society developed and flourished over the next 150 years. However, the English were never far from the scene and the French Canadians depended on France for protection. During the middle of the eighteenth century, France and England engaged in the Seven Year War and New France was invaded by English troops. In 1759, in a most significant battle on The Plains of Abraham, the English, under General Wolfe, defeated the French and took Québec. In the eyes of the old stock Québécois, this was when the English conquest occurred and their homeland taken from them by “les maudits Anglais”. Mere mention of this battle still conjures up substantial resentment in certain francophone quarters of Québec today. Following the war-ending Treaty of Paris in 1763, the French soldiers and all the upper classes returned to France, leaving behind some 60,000 hardy habitants or “Canadiens”, a nucleus French-speaking, largely agrarian population from the former New France. The next significant event was the Quebec Act of 1774, under which these French-speaking people of “Lower Canada” were guaranteed their religious rights, their systems of civil law, education, and seigneurial property. In 1850, language rights were protected when French was made an official language in Lower Canada. Many English moved into Lower Canada from 1775 to 1810, being mostly United Empire Loyalists who came north from the US to settle in and around Québec and Montreal. By 1812, Montreal was substantially English-speaking, but the French population in the surrounding rural areas was substantial, growing, and rooted in the Catholic Church which controlled education, health care and patterns of social behaviour. The birth rate was extraordinarily high. English and French Canadians coexisted in tenuous fashion under British colonial rule in Lower Canada during the first part of the nineteenth century. The French were second-class citizens under the authority of the British, and from time to time there were uprisings and unpleasant skirmishes. A particularly bitter historical memory for modern-day francophones is the ignominious defeat of “Les Patriotes” led by Louis-Joseph Papineau in the Rebellion of 1837. In the wake of this setback, the bitterness of a second conquest engulfed the “Canadiens”, leaving them paralysed and despairing. It was after this that Britain’s new monarch, Queen Victoria, sent Lord Durham to the colony with instructions to solve the Canadian problem. He reported back that he found “two nations warring in the bosom of a single state”. Of the French, “les Canadiens”, Durham wrote disparagingly that “There can hardly be conceived a nationality more destitute of all that can invigorate and elevate a people.” They had no history, no literature and, accordingly, no future, he said. He recommended that the Canadas be united both for economic reasons and to assist what he rather naively predicted would be the inevitable assimilation of the French. Although Durham’s Report was controversial and not wholly accepted, it did lead to the merger of Upper and Lower Canada by the 1840 Act of Union. The French responded positively to the new “United Provinces” and they blossomed during the 1840s and 1850s and became very active in politics, literature and intellectual pursuits. Georges-Étienne Cartier emerged as their leader and it was he who with A. Macdonald ultimately was a most powerful force in forging the amazing compromise pact which resulted in Confederation in 1867. This was the relatively peaceful solution to the problems of the day in Canada, whereas here, in this country, the fiery and savage American Civil War broke out in 1861 and raged on brutally for four years. The BNA Act gave Canada’s central government overriding authority to maintain peace, order and good government in the new Dominion and it was recognized that lasting peace, order and good government in the new nation would depend on continuing harmonious relations amongst the two founding peoples. A formula for achieving this unfortunately was not set forth in the Constitution, although Quebec’s special language, religious, property and education rights were enshrined and protected. Canada developed, grew from sea to sea, and matured as a modern industrialized nation, but French-speaking Canadians remained insulated in Québec with the strong Catholic Church controlling their education and socio-economic life. There were lots of farmers, notaries, priests, lawyers and writers, but few entrepreneurs and businessmen. The English and French in Québec were Two Solitudes, but the English dominated the business, industrial and economic life of the province, and held the real power. The French resented this, but did nothing about it in terms of widening their horizons until after World War II. Then came the Quiet Revolution in 1960, when Jean Lesage became Premier of Québec and called for French Canadians to be Masters in their own House - “Maîtres chez nous”. Education and social welfare programs were secularized. There was a profound and rapid awakening. Young Quebecers were off to Harvard and Columbia business school, and soon the English were being shunted aside as francophone fingers grasped the levers of economic power. The transformation of the society was remarkable. French nationalism became the vogue and a hard-core group of separatists became vocal. Anglophones were encouraged to integrate or leave. The Two Solitudes disappeared. English youngsters were routinely enrolled in French schools. Bilingualism became the “in” thing for both English and French. At the same time, the nasty side of nationalism showed its face and there were ugly incidents of violence - a series of bombings of English symbols during the sixties, the kidnapping of British Trade Commissioner James Cross and the murder of Québec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte in the FLQ crisis of 1971 caused great fear amongst Québec federalists and resulted in Prime Minister Trudeau invoking The War Measures Act to restore “peace and order”. By 1976, a separatist Parti québécois Government led by the dynamic and sympathetic sovereignist René Lévesque was in power in Québec’s National Assembly. There was a massive exodus of English individuals, assets and businesses from the province. Head offices of major national firms were moved to Toronto. Montreal ceased being Canada’s metropolis and financial centre. Political and social instability as we know it today set in. By 1980, the first sovereignty Referendum was held. The “NO” side won by 60% to 40%, but much damage was done to the foundations of the Canadian federation and many nationalist Quebecers were left embittered and determined to try again. The “NO” forces had been led by the strong federalist French-Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who won the day by promising Quebecers an attractive new deal within Canada. He said he would repatriate the Canadian Constitution from Westminster and bring in a new homemade Canadian Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, providing special accommodation to and special new powers for Québec. But he failed to deliver. The Constitution was repatriated alright and a Charter was established, but in the end Québec refused to sign the 1982 Constitution and Charter. Jean Chrétien was Trudeau’s Justice Minister at the time and he with Trudeau and various Premiers and Attorneys General from English provinces were felt by the Quebecers to have betrayed them badly. René Lévesque returned to Quebec from the 1982 Constitutional Conference a deeply disillusioned and wounded man. He would have preferred a new, fair and just arrangement between Québec and the rest of Canada. But now the independence movement began to fester again. The nation unity issue was back on Canada’s political agenda. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was elected in September 1984 and he set about to rectify matters by bringing Québec fully into the Constitution on terms reasonably acceptable to them and to all the other provinces as well. What Trudeau had refused five years earlier, Brian Mulroney and all ten Canadian Premiers accepted in June 1987 with the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord. The problem was, under the amending formula of the 1982 Constitution, a three-year waiting period was required for final implementation. This was first thought to be a formality, but Meech Lake Accord supporters failed to reckon with Trudeau, Chrétien and others who denounced it as a sell-out by Ottawa to the provinces and to the Québec nationalists. They campaigned against it, saying it undermined the Federal Government and weakened Canada. By the time the ratification deadline came around on June 28, 1990, a series of bizarre events had occurred and the Accord was killed. Québec was outraged. The demand within Québec for independence rapidly rose to 67%. A further Mulroney attempt at resolving the problem produced the Charlottetown Accord of August 1992, but this was defeated in a national Referendum in October 1992 by 54% to 46%. Such rejection was enough for Québec nationalists. They became more militant than ever and again elected a majority Parti québécois Government late in 1994 under hard-core separatist Premier Jacques Parizeau, who promised a Referendum on sovereignty before the end of 1995. And Mr. Parizeau made good on this promise. His power was enhanced by the fact that alienated Quebecers in the October 1993 federal election had elected, with only 16% of the national vote, 54 separatist MPs to the Federal Parliament in Ottawa. They belonged to the Bloc québécois, a one-issue separatist party led by Lucien Bouchard, which now became the Official Opposition in Parliament. The stage was thus set for the scary events of October 30th. Our history in Canada is replete with compromise and accommodation as we have struggled to keep our federation together in the face of changing demographics and the entry of new provinces and territories into our federal state. Perhaps this is why, as a middle power, we are so often called upon to play a conciliatory and peace-keeping role on the world stage. And despite Canada’s position as a major player amongst the world’s industrialized nations and its remarkably high standard of living, second only to that of the USA, Canadians tend to be reserved, insecure and obsessed with their individual identity or lack thereof. This contrasts sharply with the “wear it on your sleeve” patriotism of you American people. As Marshall McLuhan put it, “Canada is the only country in the world that has learned to live without its own distinct identity. This issue of identity is absolutely fundamental to Canada’s problems today. A crucial aspect of the integrity of the United States is the fact that despite regional and other differences, the American people share a single national dream, a common identity as Americans. Conversely, what drives Québec and the rest of Canada apart is the lack of a shared sense of belonging. Over the years, French-speaking Quebecers have developed their own strong sense of political identity; whereas, English Canadians at the same time have become committed to forming and maintaining “one Canada” - a pan-Canadian political community or nation. Both of these identities are today straining the bonds of Canada’s federalism to the absolute limit. Our challenge is to craft a new political formula which will accommodate both of them. Canada’s regional differences, together with its racial, linguistic and multicultural distinctions, combine to accentuate the nation’s economic problems in the same way they fuel social and political discord across the land. The very serious economic concerns of Canadians - especially our excessively high taxes, unemployment and massive debt - have driven up the stress and anger levels between the provinces and the Federal Government. Our national debt of US $540 million, in relative terms, is more than 1½ times that of the US. At the same time, generous Canadian social welfare programs, including universal medicare and low-cost education, combined with the costly burdens of dual government and constant federal-provincial power struggles, have added to the awesome economic pressures and consequently to the political and social instability and widespread demand for change. Simply put, Canada is living far beyond its means and must come to its senses. There is presently a spread of 1.8 percentage points between Canadian and US long-term interest rates. In effect, Canadians are paying a political-risk premium in the form of higher than necessary interest on their debt due to the political uncertainty hanging over the economy and the understandable uncertainty in the international financial markets as to Canada’s will and ability properly to deal with its deficit and other fiscal problems. There is thus today a deep-rooted sense of dissatisfaction and alienation amongst the Canadian populace. I have already touched on a number of the irritants which are particular to Canada, but there are others which you will recognize as prevailing in the USA as well. I refer to disillusionment with our institutions, such as Parliament in Canada and Congress in the US, and to the obvious erosion of respect for and confidence in our politicians and other leaders, and with the bureaucracy. And there is a growing intolerance in both our countries of the inefficiency and costliness of government. The result, I am sure you will have noted in both Canada and the US, has been the marked growth of populism and an increasingly loud demand for a bottom-up approach to government. So how does the Referendum fit into all of this? What does the result mean and where do we go from here? Has Canada really just received a brief reprieve and is Canada as a nation really facing its last chance for survival? These are the questions of the day. Correct responses and proper action could likely save a wonderful nation. Attempted answers to date have been vague, various, vacuous, and valueless! Also, they have been almost universally pessimistic. I see it differently. Premier Parizeau initially refused to acknowledge defeat and Mr. Bouchard declared there will be another Referendum and then another, and another - as many as necessary - until sovereignty is achieved. They both insisted that even if Ottawa were ready to sit down and discuss important changes for Québec, they simply will not negotiate. “Make us an offer if you want, they said, but we refuse to negotiate until Québec is a sovereign state.” But the day after the vote, Mr. Parizeau resigned as Premier of Québec and is now a “lame duck”. Mr. Bouchard is mad at Mr. Parizeau for his election night indiscretions about money and ethnics and is now vacationing here in Florida and reflecting on his future. The Premiership of Québec is Bouchard’s for the asking, but will he take it? Most analysts think he will as does this weekend’s Québec press. But I will hazard a guess that he will not. Québec’s finances and other basic affairs are in a disastrous state and Mr. Bouchard has absolutely no administrative experience. The bloom is off the separatist rose. His Bloc québécois Party would lose its Official Opposition status in the federal Parliament if he were to leave. So he is in “a box” there. Additionally, it appears he has inhibiting family constraints. Absent dynamic leadership such as Bouchard could provide, it is unlikely the Parti québécois could muster enough support either to win a Referendum or a General Election for the foreseeable future. Prime Minister Chrétien has been roundly and justifiably criticized for his poor judgment and bumbling performance during the Referendum campaign. He still appears to have no plan, no strategy. In the hours and days immediately following the vote, he was off-balance and unprepared, although seemingly anxious, even over-anxious, to make good on his last-minute promises for “necessary change” and formal recognition of Québec as a “distinct society”. He boldly declared he will not permit any more Referendums and made several impromptu and poorly thought-out public statements about being ready to make administrative and constitutional changes which would accommodate Québec and the other nine provinces and start a process of realignment of Canada’s federation. In the House of Commons, which in my view should have been closed for a three or four week cooling-off period, there have been strident outbursts and abusive name-calling by members of the major parties, but particularly by members of the right-wing Reform Party made up almost entirely of Western Canadians. The atmosphere there is neither constructive nor conducive to thoughtful public policy making. Mercifully and ironically, Prime Minister Chrétien got his own reprieve from the death of Israel’s Prime Minister Rabin. He suddenly needed to leave the country to attend Rabin’s funeral in Jerusalem; from there he went off to New Zealand to attend a Commonwealth First Ministers’ Summit and now he goes on to Japan. He is not expected back in Ottawa for at least ten days. Meantime, former Prime Minister Trudeau finally spoke up and debunked the idea of any decentralization or special powers for Québec. This in turn seemed to spook the Chrétien Government and, by the end of last week, they were backing away from new measures designed to solve the constitutional problem and fulfill Chrétien’s promises of change. When I left Ottawa on Friday, Canada’s Federal Government appeared to be in a state of paralysis. There is no doubt, ladies and gentlemen, that at first blush the Referendum seemed to leave Québec and Canada in a deeply divided state, justifying the prevailing sullen mood of despair and abject pessimism. In my view, however, there is hope for Canada. I see genuine cause for optimism and I am personally bullish about the future of Canada including Québec as an integral part of the federation. I hope this is not just wishful thinking. What has happened is that Canada’s going to the brink as it did on October 30th constituted a wake-up call for all Canadians. I am convinced the call has been heard loud and clear, albeit just in time, and that the people of Canada will never again condone circumstances which could possibly place their beloved country in such grave peril. If change is necessary for the unity and prosperity of Canada then Canadians will support it. And they will not tolerate failure by the politicians. Failure is not an option. Now is that very special time for wise and strong leadership. It is, as well, a time for understanding, respect, love, and magnanimity amongst all the peoples of Canada - amongst English, French, aboriginal and multicultural people alike; and between federal and provincial governments. And we must become constructive and positive and return to basic principles and values. Ordinary Canadians want new leaders who will seriously address their deep dissatisfaction and disillusionment in every aspect; deal with the basic economic issues like the deficit, inordinately high taxes, interest rates, the value of our dollar, unemployment and regional disparity; with the basic social issues like the family, crime, gun control, child abuse, health care, poverty; and to deal with the basic political issues like the excessive cost and inefficiency of government, breach of public trust, accountability and transparency. The people want less government and less intrusion by government into their daily lives and they want these new leaders to provide honourable and effective solutions to the legitimate requests of their fellow Canadians, especially those of Québec’s francophones. New leaders must re-balance and re-engineer the federation so that it once again reflects the Canadian reality. So where will this wise, strong and enlightened new leadership come from? I am a great believer that at times of crisis and great need, the right leaders, gifted, inspired and appropriate people, emerge and come to the fore. History has proven this over and over again. Such leaders may not be readily apparent in Québec and the rest of Canada as we speak, but I am confident they are there and will arise to meet the challenge of inspiring a new energy, enthusiasm, pride and commitment in Canadians throughout the nation. The process has already begun. Strong and committed new leaders in the persons of Premiers Ralph Klein of Alberta and Mike Harris of Ontario are hard at work, urgently addressing the real concerns of the people of their provinces. The nightmare of the Referendum is over. The wake-up call has been heeded. Canadians, including Quebecers, are now back attending to their basic pursuits and to the development of ideas, policies and attitudes which will ultimately contribute to building a revitalized and stronger Canadian federation. One of these Canadians is The Honourable Jean Charest, the attractive and dynamic young leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who captured the hearts of Canadians across the nation with his outstanding performance on the front lines during the Referendum campaign. Might he be that special Canadian leader who rises to the fore to meet the imposing challenges which face Canada as we approach the new century? Only time will tell, but let us derive confidence from the following words from a speech he delivered last Wednesday to the Canada Club in London, England: “I believe that the referendum has given us a unique opportunity for renewal in Canada. And I know that in the referendum, the Canadian people themselves heeded the words of Sir John A. MacDonald, the founding father of my party and my country, who by the way, spoke to this Club some 130 years ago, when he said: “We are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it. We shall shrink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken.” The Canadian people have decided that they will not suffer it to be broken. Nor will they suffer politicians who stand in the way of constructive change. Promises have been made. Promises must be kept. And they will be, for a strong and united Canada to fulfil its own promise in a new millennium.” In closing, let me say how earnestly I hope that the future in Canada will unfold in a way which justifies my optimism and ensures another 200 years of peace, prosperity and friendship between our two great nations. Thank you for your attention. Return to Speeches Page