THE CASE FOR MINIMAL CHANGE

by Louis Musto

Shortly after the Quebec referendum I returned to visit my native city of Montreal. The outcome of the referendum and its implications were very much on the minds of family and friends. Most interpreted the results as a demand for change. When I asked why change was so urgent the typical responses revolved around the need to address economic matters like unemployment, high taxes and the fiscal situation. Appeasing the sovereignists was also seen as crucial to keep the country together.

Public opinion polls indicate that these sentiments are also shared by many people across Canada. The question we must ask ourselves is whether drastic change to our federal system through constitutional amendments will solve these problems. I believe the answer is no.

Reforming the way the country is governed through constitutional changes will do little to improve the economy. Torpid economic growth and high unemployment is not the consequence of an imbalance in the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces. Large scale devolution of powers to the provinces will not spur growth, create jobs, reduce taxes or help us to compete in an increasingly interdependent world economy.

There may be savings from the reduction in overlap and duplication in some areas, but unless provinces agree to take on new areas of responsibilities and then significantly reduce services, the implications on overall public expenditures will be minimal.

Decentralization may lead to dissolution. We should not forget that the federal government plays an important role in promoting a sense of national identity and maintaining uniform standards in services across Canada. The CBC and medicare are two examples of how this is done.

Reopening constitutional negotiations will not address the issues that are of most concern to Canadians. The only people who will win are the Quebec sovereignists who would score public relations points over the wrangling and frustration English Canada will most likely experience as it attempts to reach consensus over constitutional change.

The popular argument that amendments to the constitution are needed to satisfy the demand of Quebec sovereignists is also misguided. Sovereignty supporters represent at most 40 percent of the Quebec population. It is unlikely they would accept any offer from the rest of Canada short of an agreement to let Quebec succeed from the federation. There is really no point in attempting to satisfy their demands.

The strategy from English Canada should be two-fold. First, we must be aggressive in communicating to the majority of Quebecers who have loyalties to Canada that their interests and aspirations are best served by remaining within the federation. There are plenty of messages that can be conveyed.,p> As part of Canada, Quebec has achieved a high standard of living, and succeeded in preserving and enhancing its French language and culture. It has been successful in influencing decisions in Ottawa. Francophones are also well represented in the federal public service.

Second, we need to demonstrate that the constitution is flexible enough to allow for change without amendments. For example, Quebec has been able to set-up its own pension plan, collect taxes, and reach agreements with the federal government on immigration matters. All provinces have the right to do the same.

The federal government can offer to negotiate bilateral agreements with Quebec and other provinces in the exercise of powers and culture. It can also pass a resolution in the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a distinct society based on its French-speaking majority, unique culture, and civil law tradition. This could be binding on all laws passed by Parliament.

Massive change is not necessary nor desirable. The current structure of the country has served us well and can continue to accommodate most of our needs.