1

DRAFT Maritime Union Speech December 2 Ladies and gentlemen thank you very much. I am very happy to be here. Thanks Jamie (Chipman), for inviting me. I dont receive very many opportunities to speak but I like to speak. And I believe I have an important message today. I especially like to speak when I can talk about something new. For a good political speech is, I believe, one part information, one part entertainment, and one part inspiration. Unfortunately this speech is none of those. Im even a bit sheepish about announcing what my topic is because what I have to say is the opposite of new. It is so old that it goes back to before the light bulb. My topic is almost two centuries old. And I worry that you will head for the exits as soon as I tell you what it is. Or, if you are the polite sort, you will just drift off into your own private reverie. So Im going to keep you in suspense. And I know it wont make you any more excited to hear that at least two other Senators have decided to talk about the same thing and raise the same issues that Im going to raise tonight and in future. Three Senators talking about the same thing! Whew! That sends the boredom meter to a new level. The other Senators are John Wallace from New Brunswick and Mike Duffy from PEI. Im sure you wish Mike Duffy, especially, was here tonight because he is never boring. The three of us, one from each of the Maritime provinces, have spent a considerable amount of time over the past six months researching, writing and brainstorming about what this region needs in order to take ourselves to a new, more prosperous and more self sufficient level. It is a level where our future is brighter. A level which will enable our children and grandchildren to stay here because there will be jobs

here. And the immigrants who come here will also want to stay. I dont know about you but I find it frustrating that the more than 50 years of regional economic development financial assistance in the form of DREE, DRIE and ACOA grants and subsidies hasnt produced measurable results. These are very good programs which are now spread from coast to coast but in our case they havent led to making a real difference in our region although it can be argued they do have positive local effects. Similarly, PEI, NB and NS have been continuous takers of equalization since the inception of equalization. Each of the other 7 provinces has been off EQ for at least a year since its inception. But worse, far worse, than our dismal record is that we have no plan to change that record. If you read what our various premiers, party leaders and others say, it leaves the impression that we are content, very content, with receiving equalization and we even cannot imagine a world without it. If you read the annual dispatches from the Council of Maritime Premiers, you will find that the premiers mention equalization every year. And every year the message is the same. Dont change it. Ever. We need it and like it. The same for EI; they want no changes. Ever. The same for other transfer payments. With regard to federal service cuts, they want all the cuts in Ottawa. But, again, the reaction is to say no to change but we seldom come up with ideas to fix our common problems jointly. This is all very depressing. But it isnt depressing because receiving equalization is a bad thing because, in fact, equalization is a very good thing. It is a kind of national safety net the federal government provides to underperforming provinces against a national average so that provincial governments can offer services that are similar, if not the same, to what Canadians in performing provinces receive.

This is a good thing, a positive thing, and a generous thing and it is one of the underpinnings of Canadian citizenship and confederation. But that doesnt mean that we have to enjoy receiving it. In fact, our record is so dismal that far from being helped by the safety net in the years we must, it looks more like we are in receipt of a permanent subsidy. Do you want to be subsidized? I dont. But there is another way to look at equalization. And that is not just to consider that it is a good thing, which it certainly is, but to consider that it is a symbol of an underperforming economy. Receiving EQ is the best annual indicator of an underperforming provincial economy that we have. Receipt of equalization is the recognition that theres something about your province that doesnt result in an economy that is able to support the Canadian way of life within its borders and on its own. There could be many factors as to why. Maybe a province receives EQ because of the way the provincial economy or government or province is managed. Maybe they receive it because they lack natural resources that the world wants. Maybe they receive it because their economy is affected by a global downturn, which is mainly why Ontario receives it, or maybe its a demographic problem. In other words, maybe receipt of equalization is a result of factors within your control or factors not in your control. Or maybe you receive it because of a mix of both. One thing is certain, in my view, you should try to avoid receiving it. It is morally indefensible, I believe, to be content to receive it, without doing everything you can to avoid receiving it. If you have done everything possible to avoid receiving it, and you still receive it, you can be content. But not until then. So, why cant we make positive fiscal contributions to this great country of ours?

There are three obvious facts about the Maritime provinces. The Maritime provinces are the three smallest geographically. The Maritime provinces are three of the four smallest in population, the fourth being Newfoundland & Labrador. The Maritime provinces have no resources for which the world will pay a premium. Theres some gas but no oil and Nova Scotias offshore gas runs out in about 10 years, declining each year until then. And none of our provinces has a mining industry. We in Nova Scotia for some reason hate mining so much that weve virtually banned it. And there is no expectation that resources like these can be found. A demonstration of the power of natural resources is that, until Hibernia, Newfoundland had always been a receiver of equalization and it could not be imagined that the future would be anything different. Now it is booming and is a net contributor to Confederation. But we have nothing like that in our foreseeable future. The result is that our three Maritime provinces face common problems. Our children have left for decades for better opportunities in the performing provinces. They continue to do that and it is hard to imagine a future when they wont be doing that. Our population is getting greyer and needs more and more expensive services. Our population will continue to put less and less back into the economy with respect to labour and taxes unless we find a way to keep our young people here as well as attract new people. We are not a popular destination for immigration from within Canada or from outside, unless perhaps you are retired. A

high percentage of those who come here leave for other parts of Canada as soon as they can. We have a terrible record of immigrant retention. All three provinces have serious deficit problems. Despite lack of power to do anything positive to effect meaningful change, our provincial governments themselves are huge. Taken together they give Maritimers more government than they really need and certainly more than they can afford, as Donald Savoie has recently pointed out. It can be easily shown that no other group of 1.8 million people in Canada have as much government as Maritimers do. Here are some quick facts in that regard. The figures (derived from Statistics Canada) for the amount of public sector employment in the Maritime provinces, provincial and federal governments combined, are: PEI Nova Scotia New Brunswick 23.4% 25.5% 23.1%

By comparison, in Ontario, 18% of the labor force is employed in the public sector. Fifteen percent of employed Albertans are in the public sector and the corresponding figure for British Columbia is 16.5%. In other words, each of our provinces has about 50% more public sector employees per capita than British Columbia, which mirrors Nova Scotia with its high naval presence, and we all know about BCs continued flirtations with NDP governments. A comparison of provincial legislatures provides similar data. The three Maritime provinces have 134 MLAs. This contrasts with 58 and 57 in Manitoba and Saskatchewan respectively, provinces with bigger land masses and each only about 60% of our total population. MLAs in Saskatchewan and Manitoba cover land

masses eleven times larger than what a Maritime MLA covers. Ontario has 106 MLAs for a population more than seven times the Maritimes population. You have to ask yourself if all this government is necessary and if too much government is a drag on the economy. What do we do about our sadly and chronic under-performing region? Well theres no easy answer or magic bullet. But I believe that we have to do what is in our authority to do to make things better. This leads me to my purpose tonight. Senators Wallace, Duffy and I as well as others have decided to promote the cause of Maritime Union. I know that you think youve heard it all before. We think that the failure of past attempts, at least in part, is that the participants wanted to edge around the issues for too long. They wanted to take baby steps. We, on the other hand, declare our support for full political union and the creation of one Maritime province comprising present day NB, NS and PEI as soon as possible. So I want to talk to you about something very old and yet very new. Something very simple yet to this date very elusive. I want to talk to you about fulfilling our promise as Maritimers in a new Maritime Union. I want to make the case that PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia joined together are stronger and more vibrant than they are separate. I want to make the case that a new Maritime Union would jump start a new chapter in our common and storied history and build a brighter future for our children. In short a Maritime Union would renew hope and let us take back our future. Maritime Union goes back a long way. It is interesting that it has never really faded from public view. It is a recurring topic

of discussion. This is not mirrored in the relationships between any other provinces. In 1806, John Uniake, the attorney general for NS, proposed a union of the maritime colonies to keep the US at bay. In 1814, Edward Duke of Kent proposed two legislative unions; one for the two Canadas and one for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island. In 1854 Sir Edmund Head, the LG of NB proposed a limited and feasible maritime union. In 1859 NS LG the Earle of Mulgrave gave his support to Maritime union. In 1862 the NB LG said the pettiness of New Brunswick politicians and the general political vices of the province are intolerable and the cure for these ills lies in maritime union. But as the prospects for Canadian union rose in the 1860s, the case for maritime union weakened. In 1864 at Charlottetown, maritime union was deferred after progress on Canadian union was achieved. In 1875 it revived when Edward Willis of the NB cabinet proposed a union that would lessen the expenses of provincial governments, diminish local prejudices which obstruct material progress and add weight to the influence of maritime representatives in Ottawa. Let me repeat these conditions for Maritime union because Mr. Willis in 1875 was the first person to clearly enunciate the benefits of Maritime union. He said Maritime Union would:
a) lessen the expenses of provincial governments;

8 b) diminish local prejudices which obstruct material

progress this is another way of saying have a single economic development strategy; c) add weight to the influence of Maritime representatives in Ottawa. You might call these the winning conditions for Maritime Union. In 1877 Cateret Hill, NS premier, argued that union would empower the maritimes within the federal system. In 1886 NS premier Fielding began a campaign for union during an election campaign winning that election. Prior to the campaign he launched a series of resolutions in the NS Assembly repealing Confederation and advocating Maritime union. After he was elected, he had no success with the other two provinces in repealing Confederation and advocating Union, which were linked in his mind. And so the issue faded. Then for about 50 years the issue of Maritime Union was scarcely raised. In the late 1940s, the issue was revived by many legislators and Maritime elites often in the context of Newfoundlands joining Confederation. The issue lay fallow again until the 1960s when Louis Robichaud, Premier of New Brunswick, revived it. He experienced positive results in that many others picked up the cause. Many university seminars and conferences were organized. Many seminars agreed with the conditions formulation of earlier times and added a fourth, the impact of Quebec separation. It was also held during this time that if there was to be union, French language rights would have to be a basic condition of the new arrangement. The growing interest resulted in the Deutsch Report which was funded by the three Maritime governments and the federal government which funded half.

The report resulted in three limited recommendations. It recommended: 1. a council of maritime premiers 2. a maritime provinces commission to undertake long term planning 3. a joint legislative assembly to meet once a year An opinion poll was commissioned and found that support for union was: 68% in NB; 62% in NS; and 58% in PEI. Despite these impressive numbers, and despite various resolutions and debates in provincial legislatures throughout the 1970s, the issue got lost and faded from view amid the circus of provincial politics as provincial elections were held and governments supporting it lost focus or lost power. The issue lay dormant again for about 20 years. In the mid 1990s, the issue arose again. Liberal MP Ronald MacDonald of Dartmouth raised the issue and found an audience for it. His central arguments reflected the same arguments raised by Mr. Willis of New Brunswick about 100 years earlier. This prompted New Brunswick Senator Brenda Robertson to raise the issue. She again raised the same arguments. In addition, she powerfully said: One Maritime province has certain logic. It would be larger and more economically powerful than any single province, and its future economic development prospects would be greatly enhanced because it would be driven by a single economic development strategy. As well, one larger stronger province would have more influence in national policy-making and would better represent the

10

regions common interest and its unique character than three competing small provinces.1

Then the issue faded from view again. Meanwhile the Council of Maritime Premiers continues to meet. But union is the last thing they talk about. They generally make progress on technical issues of cooperation not a bad thing but a long way from whats really needed. In a sense, the Council of Maritime Premiers is actually an obstacle to maritime union because it shows progress on small issues that give the impression that something real is happening. As you can see, the leadership failure seems to run fairly deep. While there have been attempts to raise the issue for over 150 years, there has never been a champion with any power. And now, through the Council of Maritime Premiers, we are involved in the appearance of making progress on maritime union when we really arent. The small improvements the Council is able to make dont have much impact and dont change our fortunes. Successive provincial governments have acquiesced in the maintenance of an unsustainable political system, or at least one that doesnt suit us well, and have made no real effort to understand its consequences or to promote the obvious alternative. Senator Robinson said something very important when she said that Maritime Union has a certain logic. I believe that if logic is all that Maritime Union has, then it will never happen. Rather, a quest for Maritime union must be perceived as a good thing, a beneficial thing, by Maritimers in all walks of life. They have to want it. They have to instruct their provincial politicians that they want it. But lets face it, the political inertia around the issue is fed
1

11

by politicians and bureaucrats worried about their personal status. We have to remind them that they dont own this issue. The people do. Up to now, Maritime Union has been driven by brave elites who havent been able to muster support amongst their colleagues. But I believe the political process will move on this if Maritimers show they want union. In some sense, they must appreciate, even feel, that they are Maritimers, before they are New Brunswickers, Nova Scotians and Prince Edward Islanders. This sounds like a real obstacle until you remember the opinion poll forty years ago that showed about 60% support for a concept that hadnt even been sold. Perhaps Maritimers feel something about this issue in their bones. In some sense, the Maritimes is a real place. The Maritimes has always been a way to describe this region and Maritimer has always been a way to describe the people who live here. In many ways, our provincial boundaries are artificial. They, in fact, divide us. They divide a group of people who came here about the same time, who have the same, or very similar, ethnicity, and histories, and who have very common problems and aspirations. Certainly, Maritimers have more in common with each other than with people in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan or any other province you could name. We in fact have more in common with people in Maine than with people in any other Canadian province. We are a distinct people and we have a distinct culture. But we are divided. These divisions prevent us from capitalizing on our skills, talents and culture and showing them to the world. These divisions lead to behaviour at cross-purposes and an inability to get the most out of our wonderful, blessed, region. We are very competitive but the nature of our divisions leads us to direct our competition against each other when it should be directed at the rest of the world. It is time to end the divisions. It

12

is time to acknowledge that we are one. And a very powerful one at that. So what are the some key elements or advantages in our transformation from three into one? Here are a few which I have available for you in a hand-out.

Maritime Union Maritimes Divided

Three chronically weak economies made worse by artificial trade barriers and governments in competition with each other for investment We are the 7th, 9th, and 10th provinces in population. Consistent acceptance of EQ and federal transfers which amount to one third of provincial budgets No obvious development opportunities that will fix provincial economies

Maritimes United
A single stronger economy with a single strategy for economic development We are the 5th largest in population.

A plan to reduce then end reliance on EQ. In short, embracing the goal of becoming a have province Eliminating overlapping government representation, admin and services enabling lower taxes and a more attractive climate for investment A more attractive place for young people and immigrants A single federal presence larger than Manitoba or Saskatchewan.

Inability to keep young people or attract immigrants Divided federal representation results in lack of focus and enables the small provinces to be played off against one another Divided provincial jurisdiction which make resource exploitation particularly in coastal areas hydro carbons and fisheries complicated and expensive.

A single provincial jurisdiction in coastal areas, particularly Gulf of St.Lawrence and Bay of Fundy, to better facilitate resource exploitation. A single fisheries policy and administration.

13
Divided provincial jurisdictions which result in competition for tourist and infrastructure dollars that is wasteful and at cross-purposes. A single provincial tourism strategy and a network of transportation infrastructure to benefit a growing province.

Senator John Wallace of New Brunswick, Senator Mile Duffy from PEI and me, from Nova Scotia, intend to raise this issue again and again and again over the next five years. We intend to make it grow. We intend that it be non-partisan. We want people in all parties to embrace it. In fact, we believe that if our cause becomes partisan, it will fail. Again. We note that in the past it has become a political football at various times with a political party taking a position just to gain a short term political advantage. How shocking! In our highly charged political environment, particularly in Nova Scotia, with three roughly equal parties jockeying for a very narrow political space, there are real dangers it could become a political football. This is why the three of us will be actively seeking across the aisle support. So we are each open to speaking at Liberal or NDP events. And you should be open to hearing about Maritime Union from people in other parties. This is the first speech that we are making on behalf of Maritime Union. But it wont be the last. Were going to introduce the topic in the Senate shortly. And in the coming months you will see opinion pieces in newspapers and reports of other speeches by each of us and hopefully by others and maybe some seminars too. We are in this for the long haul. Thank you very much.
.

14