Fact and Fantasy in the Unity Debate: Rejoinder

Abstract

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the comments1 on my article which appeared in the Spring, 1979 issue. I find the comments to be most significant for what they left unsaid. In particular, no alternative to separation was offered as a solution to the dilemma in which Canada finds itself. Even given goodwill on all sides, there is no way that the federation could be reconstituted in such a way that the Quebecois could realize their aspirations, the interests of all majority and minority groups could be respected and the national government could retain powers sufficient to meet national emergencies and exigencies. Of course it would be unreasonable of me to expect anyone to provide such a solution. But that is just to say that my major thesis stands unchallenged. The least bad solution lies in encouraging Quebec to seek sovereignty-association status. I have studied the position paper issued on January 10 by the champion of the federalist cause in Quebec, Claude Ryan, without finding that it was possible to be more sanguine concerning the prospects of a Third Option than it was after studying the proposals of the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity. The concerns which led to this conclusion are ably examined by Alan Cairns' comments on the latter report.2 As for the particular matters raised by Eric Mintz and E.W. Clarke, I find no inclination to be disputatious. I do not know any more than Mintz does whether, in a Canada without Quebec, the other provinces would be less inclined to continue transfers to the Atlantic Provinces. But I cannot agree that Quebec would have the upper hand in bargaining over the transmission of Churchill Falls power through Quebec. Such bargaining would be but one item of a large package. The overall bargaining advantage would lie with Canada. A similar comment applies to the possible encroachment of an independent Quebec upon Newfoundland's fishery. Finally, while the economic interests of the Western and Atlantic Provinces often differ, they share the overriding interest in freer trade and the diminution of policies which have helped to concentrate manufacturing in Ontario. I readily agree with Edward Clarke's comment that some of the benefits mentioned by me could accrue to Newfoundland in the absence of Quebec's separation. In the weeks immediately following the May election it seemed that such would be the case. Unhappily the euphoria I felt at the time was quickly dispelled. I cannot agree with Clarke's contention that 'only if it can be demonstrated that the social, political and economic benefits that accrue to Canada as a whole exceed the sum of such benefits which the individual regions (or provinces) would receive as autonomous states can a case be made for Confederation.' If material benefits had been paramount, there never would have been a Canada. Like marriage, the survival of the union rests solely on sentiment. Clarke himself points out that 'those advocating ... [Newfoundland's union with Canada] ... rarely attempted to cite explicit reasons why Canada would benefit tangibly ...' The explanation is apparent. Canadians did not expect to benefit in any tangible way from Newfoundland's entry. Newfoundland was welcomed almost exclusively for reasons of sentiment. I