EDITORIAL PAGE — The referendum aftermath

The amount of ink dedicated to coverage of the recent referendum in Quebec would probably fill one of the Great Lakes. But outside of Canada, the event caught the world by surprise. Indeed, the most common response to the issue from non-Canadians is one of amazement. Why, foreigners ask, do some Quebecers want to dismantle a country that is widely regarded as the best in which to live?

There is no simple answer to this question, no logical explanation that can be easily understood. The issue is far too emotional, subjective and complex to be boiled down into a single response. But foreigners should understand that the debate was not so much between Quebec and the rest of Canada, as it was between groups of Quebecers with very different visions about their future.

But other questions have come to the surface, now that the referendum is over and Quebecers have voted No to breaking up the Canadian federation. Serious divisions remain in Quebec society, and investors need to know whether these divisions will deepen and lead to further uncertainty, in which case Canada might be seen as a less attractive country in which to invest.

We do not believe this should be the case. There is, perhaps for the first time, a willingness on the part of most Canadians to recognize Quebec’s distinctiveness. Even Newfoundland Premier Clyde Wells has acknowledged this fact, notwithstanding his insistence that no one group of Canadians should have more constitutional rights than others on the basis of race, place of origin, religion, gender, or any other factor that divides rather than unites a nation.

Canada’s political leaders have extended an olive branch to Quebec, to work for meaningful change. It remains to be seen if this offer will be accepted by the Quebec government, which will soon have a new leader to replace Premier Jacques Parizeau. It remains to be seen if Parizeau’s successor will face up to the spiralling deficit and other economic realities and build bridges with the business community in his province. And it remains to be seen if Quebec’s new Premier will take steps to heal the divisions within the province, divisions that were exacerbated by Parizeau’s remarks that old-stock Quebecers lost the referendum because of “money and the ethnic vote.” If a society that benefits only “pure wool” francophones is what the ruling Parti Quebecois hopes to create within Quebec, Canadians and progressive Quebecers should take no part in fashioning such a place. Fortunately for Canada, Quebec has political leaders such as Daniel Johnson and Jean Charest who accept, and are not hostile to, the cultural diversity within their province. They are not afraid of competing in a global economy; nor are they fearful of the changes that will take place in the next century.

It has been said that in a changing world, the future will belong to those who can move, with informed grace, across ethnic and cultural lines. Canadians have this capacity, which is why they have been so successful in expanding their business interests globally. The Canadian mining industry, for example, has been welcomed in every corner of the globe because it is progressive, not only technically, but socially and environmentally as well. And that is one reason why we are optimistic about the future of Quebec, and of Canada.