>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:09:39 -0500 >To: Tibor R Machan , johnz@latcs1.lat.oz.au, Francis Buckley , Gabrielle Brenner , Reuven Brenner , Frederick Charette , Herbert Burkert , Isabelle de Lamberterie , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9?= Woehrling , Daniele Bourcier , Adrian Mackaay , kselick@connect.reach.net (Karen Selick), Pierre Lemieux <71201.3565@compuserve.com>, Jacques Fremont , "R.1.TAYLOR" , Ysolde Gendreau , Anja Oskamp , Paul Malherbe , icstls-l@chicagokent.Kentlaw.EDU, Paul Bratley , Karim Benyekhlef , Bertrand Lemennicier <100434.3067@compuserve.com>, LibertProfessors , ECONLAW@gmu.edu, Jack Sanders , bernt.hugenholtz@sara.nl (Bernt Hugenholtz), mackaay@fwi.uva.nl (Marco Arien Mackaay(W89)), Catherine Valcke , psa2@pop.pitt.edu (Pamela Samuelson) >From: Ejan Mackaay >Subject: Quebec and Canada: a personal reaction >I wish to ask those of you who live and work in Canada to communicate >what you think of the results of the vote in Quebec. >Thank you. >Tibor Machan Please allow me this personal reaction, as one who is caught in the middle of it. I am responding in a single message to a number of people who asked me react. The result (50,6% No and 49,4% Yes to Separation) means anything but "business as usual", indeed an obligation to change the structure of the country. Unfortunately those who should now stand up as the main actors of change, in order to reform of the Canadian Constitution are or have been opposed to that solution. Chretien, the federal prime minister, looked on television like a tired old man, out of touch with reality, forced to do the very thing he has always publicly proclaimed to be radicaly opposed to: cut down his own government's power through a change in the constitution (difficult to achieve in Canada) and rally all provinces behind it. If he fails, there may a backlash as much in the West of Canada as in Quebec. And the native peoples have, in any event, their own agenda for decentralisation and more powers for native governments. Parizeau, the provincial premier, declared yesterday evening that he (or his yes option) has been beaten by "big money and the ethnic vote". I do not take kindly to being characterised as "ethnic vote", with a twinge of not counting for full, and I cannot forgive someone who holds the high office of prime ministerof this province and who now has to represent all citizens of the province in the negotiations to come, for have given such racist terminology new currency, all the while radicalising the pursuit his follower's dream of a separate country, where for the moment burying of differences and reconciliation is called for. The two men have apparently lost the credibility that the sitiuation requires. That is bad news. The essential element of the reform, in my view, must be a radical reduction in what the federal government can do and what it can tax for, and the entrenchment of these limitations in the Constitution. It goes (as Public choice would tll one) against the vested interests of federal politicians, including the appointed Senate, and the federal bureaucracy. And the Supreme Court of Canada must now be made to see that national unity is endangered, rather than fostered, by conferring further power onto the central government, through the interpretation of the Constitution. Radical decentralisation is what Alberta and BC are looking for. It would also, I believe, assuage most of what Quebec nationalism stands for ("distinct society"). In history, (as I have argued elsewhere), constitutionally entrenched rights, bulwark of the rule of law, have emerged only at times of crises, when a broad coalition of (groups of) citizens could be mobilised to stop the abuse of power. Has the referendum result created the conditions for such a coalition in favour of a different, but equally essential kind of entrenchment of limitations to central power in the federation? The coming weeks will have to tell us. The economics of federations shows that the federal government and the member-state governments are not merely two levels of government, more or less equal, but they operate under fundamentally different roles, the federal government being a monopolist, the member-state governments being in competition with one another. If a member-state government expands its agenda, either in taking on more tasks (welfare state) or in a direction not all citizens approve of (lingsuitic protectionism), the cost of such policies and the possible correction will come as some citizens vote with their feet. Provided mobility of citizens, business and capital is ensured and certain fundamental rights are constitutionally entrenched, this mechanism will by itself drive member-state governments to provide broadly the services that citizens prefer, and no more than that. Switzerland stand as the example of how it can work. For the federal government engaging in such policies, no such correctives are available. More federal government will encourage a hand-out mentality amongst citizens, industries, interst groups and stimulate the lobbies that cater for it, the deficit will explode (as it did in Canada). One will jealousy, even acrimony, amongst the various groups benefitting from the federal hand-outs (This too can be observed in Canada in spades over the past 20 years or so). Provinces may set themselves up as lobby groups. If equalisation payments amongst provinces are admitted on a large scale, this "irresponsibility" will carry over to the provincial level, with corresponding provincial deficits (again, as can be observed for Quebec and other provinces). Centralisation also creates a tendency towards cultural (and other) uniformity, which is precisely opposed to the diversity the confederation was precisely created to maintain and wil create further dissession (again, obvious in the reaction of Quebeckers, and played into by populist politicians). My French-speaking friends seek to guarantee a society in which they can transmit a way of life in French to their children and grandchildren. And they point to the rapid disappearance of French in Louissiana: gone within one generation. What remains is folklore. I share this preference and the conern for survival of French here, and I like to think that I have done my bit, as an immigrant, to help this happen. But the moving factor in this game, in my view, is not government power (to force or enforce use of French). It will only create more protectionism and, as all protectionism, in the long run weaken whatever one seeks to protect. No, the protection can (only) be assured where those speaking the language prosper and being confident and proud to transmit these values to their offspring (very much Tom Sowell would say). And prospering means encouraging private initiative and engaging in business wherever one can find it and in whatever language it comes, however different from what one speaks at home. There may be tension between the language and culture one wishes to preserve at home, where they are different from those encountered in people one deals with professionally. But that tension is creative (I believe I may speak here from experience); it is demanding and difficult, and it forces citizens to compete, even though they have an initial "handicap"; but it cannot be avoided, not even in a Quebec that is a separate nation-state, if citizens want to leave more to their children than a legacy better than some form of Albanian formula. Openness to the rest of North America, and to the wider world, is an indispensable quality for the preservation of French. Overall, I would put my bets on federalism, properly understood, concomitantly with personal values and pride to preserve the French language and culture here. We should take look to the Swiss federation for lessons about how that can be made to work. Can we get there from here? That is the big question, the one about the broad coalition. By and large what I propose is compatible with a liberal agenda. What I fear is a formula which results in less federal powers, more provincial powers and shielding the latter from competition. That would be a recipe for the most illiberal change. My apologies to those who see this message more than once. EJAN MACKAAY U. of Montreal/Law