The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Interview with Rene Levesque

ROBERT MacNEIL: Canada, America`s vast neighbor to the north, and the province of Quebec are in the throes of an agonizing debate over Canada`s constitutional future, even its existence as one nation. To night we talk with the man who precipitated this crisis, the Premier of Quebec Province, Rene Levesque.

Good evening. The Canadian Federal Government today released a startling document -- the recommendations by a high-level task force that the constitution and political structure of the country be radically altered.It would be the equivalent in American terms of a presidential commission recommending that the U.S. Constitution be torn up and rewritten in a drastically different way. The task force of prominent Canadians was appointed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to find ways of solving the crisis caused by the movement for independence in the province of Quebec. Mr. Trudeau welcomed the report today as a landmark contribution to the search for harmony in Canada. The report says that the consensus holding Canada together as a nation is at the point of breaking down. It recommends giving Quebec -- and Canada`s nine other provinces -- considerably more autonomy to run their own affairs, including the right to control immigration, some relations with foreign countries, and to make treaties. The immediate question the report raises is whether two bodies will accept its radical proposals: the whole federal government in Ottawa, and Rene Levesque, the Premier of Quebec Province. By coincidence Mr. Levesque is in Washington, and we talk with him tonight. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, most political arguments over the future of Quebec begin with the basic facts of Quebec. It`s one of ten provinces in Canada, but economically about twenty percent of the gross national product is generated there. On size, roughly twelve times larger than the State of New York, it`s fifteen percent of Canada`s land area; and its six million-plus people add up to twenty-seven percent of Canada`s total population. One side cites these and other facts to prove that Quebec is a vital part of Canada and must remain such. The other uses them to show how viable Quebec could be as an independent nation on its own.

The argument revolves, of course, around Quebec`s French heritage. It was settled by the French 371 years ago, ruled by France until the British defeated the French in 1759. But the French influence has maintained itself through the years; eighty-one percent of those six million Quebeckers today are French-speaking. There has always been talk and agitation for Quebec independence, but it wasn`t until 1976 that matters got serious. That`s when the pro-independence party, Parti Quebecois, won control of Quebec`s provincial government. The effort was led by a former TV journalist named Rene Levesque, one of the founders of the Parti Quebecois and now the Premier of Quebec.

Welcome, Mr. Levesque.

RENE LEVESQUE: Hello, M. Lehrer.

LEHRER: We want to get to today`s report and to some other matters in detail in a moment, but first I want to make sure that we understand what your basic position is on independence for Quebec. Do you still favor independence?

LEVESQUE: Yes -- well, there are many words that are used. The one we prefer is "sovereignty." You can call it self-government. But basically what we mean is this. In the sort of bind to us -- and I think growingly the rest of Canadians, that the federal system such as the one we have up north, the bind it has become, a sort of straitjacket -- we think the way to the future would be something like this: sovereignty, meaning we make our own laws, we legislate for Quebec`s development, for anything that has to do with Quebec`s collective life...

LEHRER: Does that include taxes...?

LEVESQUE: And we collect all our public revenue, exclusively. Now, this, I think, is the basic articulation of what you`d call independence.

LEHRER: Would you have your own army, sign treaties?

LEVESQUE: Well, we can go into that if you want to. But there`s another aspect, or another side to the coin; we call it association. And this is inspired, loosely, by the experience that other countries, civilized countries, have gone through that couldn`t get closer together for generations, like Germany, France, Britain, et cetera, who found a recipe outside the classical federal system, which is the European community-- you have a Scandinavian experiment going, too, the Nordic Council -- which means that you can remain in charge of your own home because you have a different identity, you have in many ways different aspirations, and yet you have that closeness of geography, of, in our case, tradition, and we don`t want to break up everything. So on the basis of market unity, of monetary -- currency unity, and more joint ventures, including possibly some defense arrangements, things like that, we could maintain a continuity while to each his own as far as inner development is concerned. That`s the basic aspect. So it is independence, and yet it is, yet, some sort of community, if we can negotiate it. Now, all that is based on a referendum, a public or general consultation we`re going to have on a plebiscite basis some time during the end of this year or not too late next year.

LEHRER: Does what you just outlined constitute a change in your position from what it was when Parti Quebecois first began?

LEVESQUE: No. You know, we had two commitments when we were elected two and a half years ago; one was very simply to try and be as decent a government as possible on the present basis; and the second one was a commitment to this referendum and very clearly exposing what we would propose. Our opponents are going to fight like hell, so we lose, but it`s very clear. And I was rereading -- because after two years of trying to be a good government we`re getting closer to a referendum -- so I was rereading what we had to say ten years ago when we started.

LEHRER: This is the start of the Parti Quebecois.

LEVESQUE: Yes. That`s the same basis, and the ten years have, to us, confirmed that we`re in the right direction.

LEHRER: You know, most drives for independence, through history, have followed deprivations, discriminations, things having to do with human rights and other tragedies perpetrated upon people by the ruling government. Is it your position that the people of Quebec have been oppressed by the Canadian government?

LEVESQUE: No, it`s much more nuance than that. In fact, I`d put it in this way, that we are a colonial setup and I think colonial set ups -- in many ways we are that -- have had their day. On the other hand, we`re certainly one of the best equipped, best treated colonies that I`ve ever heard about. But that doesn`t change the fact that there is this rising aspitation to -- you know, we went from a rather rural, hidebound, surviving community to something that happened, like it happened everywhere in the world, accelerating change, catching up, making up for lost time and all that, and feeling, growingly, that the federal system the way it`s set up in Canada was a straitjacket for this development, and we were hitting against a wall of something that was brittle and didn`t give the results we were, I think, justified to expect. And there was not the kind of fair treatment, let`s face it, for our French people...

LEHRER: They were discriminated against because they were French.

LEVESQUE: Yeah. That doesn`t go to oppression, you know, in the tragic sense of what we`ve seen elsewhere in the world. But there was this downgrading and a sort of second-class feeling as citizens, especially outside Quebec and in some ways -- promotion-wise and things like that, on account of the control inside Quebec by the English minority -- of being even second-class sometimes in your own home. The pressure built up and, we think, the way out, because we`ve been poisoning each other as two societies for quite some time. It`s something close, or remarkably close, to what we`re proposing.

LEHRER: All right; thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Mr. Levesque, the task force report on Canadian unity that was released today and which I mentioned briefly at the beginning, if that were adopted, would that not go a long way to giving you and Quebec what you want?

LEVESQUE: Well, look, Mr. MacNeil, I`m in a bad position because I hopped a plane in the middle of an incipient storm, after a long day yesterday, around six o`clock, and all I got was a sort of very small press summary; and as you say, it was published today. I haven`t seen the bloody thing, so it`s kind of hard to, you know, pass a judgment on something which represents something like two years of work by a task force of rather eminent people. The feeling I get from the first reactions that I gathered is that it`s a sort of semi, quasi-special status proposal, but I haven`t seen any reaction out of federal quarters and I can`t give you mine; we haven`t had time to study it.

MacNEIL: Let me read you one quote from it; I saw a much longer...

LEVESQUE: Quotes...

MacNEIL: ...summary. Let me read you one. If you don`t want to reply, don`t, but just see what you think about this. The report says, "Quebec is distinctive, and should within a viable Canada have the powers necessary to protect and develop its distinctive character. Any political solution short of this would lead to the rupture of Canada." Now, isn`t that in brief what your party wants?

LEVESQUE: Well, that`s the problem with quotes. I don`t know what`s before it, I don`t know what`s after it; it sounds like a virtuous statement, but I`d like to see what it`s tied to.

MacNEIL: You mentioned a moment ago that you wanted control over taxes.

LEVESQUE: That`s for sure.

MacNEIL: The report, the task force recommends a very considerable control over taxes for all the provinces. You`ve wanted control over immigration; it recommends giving that to the provinces. Foreign relations to a large extent, including the right to make treaties. I`m just wondering whether all this doesn`t add up to something that in a sense politically could pull the rug out from under the Parti Quebecois.

LEVESQUE: Look, if they have an alternate proposal -- you know, imagination hasn`t been the forte -- is that the way you say it? -- at federal level or, let`s say, in the Canadian status quo forces over the last ten years -- if they come up with something that`s interesting, people will be called upon on a Quebec basis, when we have our referendum, to judge; they`ll get a good chance. In the meantime, if you give me more time than we have during this half hour to study it, I could give you my considered opinion; but I`d feel a little bit premature. I haven`t read the darn thing.

MacNEIL: I see. Well, we can`t force you to react to something you haven`t read, then. Would you be inclined to include the provisions of such an obviously important document as alternatives in a referendum that you would present to the people of Quebec?

LEVESQUE: Well, that remains to be seen. I still believe that the only really promising way out of the bind we`re in, the sort of straitjacket feeling that people -- and growingly in both sides of Canada - are getting from our setup, which is obsolete, is something in the line of what we`re proposing. Now, look, I`m not any kind of a fanatic about everything chapter and verse, down to the last comma, being exactly what we`ve proposed, so I`ve got an open mind about looking at this exercise of the Pepin-Robarts group. But again, trying to answer a question like that, are we going to use that as a sort of alternate proposal, no. You know how complicated a referendum is to organize, how you are watched about every word that goes into the question? And it has to be clear and honest or else you`re judged on that question? We have the initiative of putting it to the people. Give us a chance to think it over, okay?

MacNEIL: Well, let me ask you one more question. If this report, as I read it -- a sort of fifteen-page summary with quotes in it put out by the government -- if that...

LEVESQUE: So you`re going from a summary, too.

MacNEIL: Perhaps a slightly longer summary than you are, I don`t know. (Laughing.)

LEVESQUE: (Laughs.)

MacNEIL: But anyway, if that sounded to the people, your constituents in your province, something like what you`re proposing, and as they are a bit ambivalent about your idea, at least as the polls show, your idea of soverignty association, might they not find that a more comfortable alternative than what you`re proposing, simply because it had the blessing of the rest of Canada on it -- assuming the rest of Canada adopted it?

LEVESQUE: I can tell you one thing for sure: we`ve got good pollsters on our side and they`ve got a bunch of them on the other side, and everybody`s going to be polling like mad about questions like that over the next few months. That`s as much as I can tell you for now.

MacNEIL: Well, we`ll have to wait until you`ve read it to see what your reaction is. Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: All right, your government has passed a language law, Bill 101 it`s called, making French the official language in Quebec, requiring all signs to be in French, requiring...

LEVESQUE: Don`t mention that too much -- well, it`s not ... okay.

LEHRER: Okay. in French; there are Rather than to argue guage -- if you want speak French, right?

But basically it requires business be transacted exceptions, in my reading of 101, but -- okay. about that, it basically makes French the lanto do business and live in Quebec you`d better Basically.

LEVESQUE: I think it makes sense. If you want to do business in Quebec, where eighty-one percent of the six million and some people there are French-speaking from morning to night, it does make sense. Not just respect for customers, they say, but also efficient operations. But to get back to, I think, the essential of this, there`s one thing I`d like to emphasize if you don`t mind, and that is that we had a predecessor as government, the Liberal Party -- you know, one of the old standbys of Canadian political life.

LEHRER: The party of Prime Minister Trudeau.

LEVESQUE: Yeah. At their provincial level they were in power until we moved in. They`re what we call in our system the official opposition. Which means the only successor we could have in the foreseeable future would be that same Liberal Party if we get kicked out. They were the ones, on account of the pressure building in Quebec on the French side after years and years of feeling this sort of second-class status for our own language at home, they were the ones that started legislating in a rather restrictive way in order to promote the French language in 1974. What we did was push it a bit forward, correct some of the things they did wrong, which is just to emphasize this: in the foreseeable future there will be some sort of restriction on traditional, let`s say, "You can use what language you want in anyplace, anywhere, whichever way you feel like." There had to be something like that; the pressure was there. Now, what we`ve done is that-- it`s not true that it is any kind of exclusive place for French. That`s an illusion or propaganda. To give you an example, rather well-known people in Quebec are on trial in the next-door province of Ontario. They can`t get a trial in French. In spite of our legislation, as a person you can get a trial in French in Quebec courts. So you see, there are so many aspects...

LEHRER: You mean in English in Quebec.

LEVESQUE: In English in Quebec, yeah. So what I`d say as a conclusion is this, and this I read in that summary of that report that I haven`t read fully yet -- the summary, after their two years of work, at least it`s decent on that -- in a nutshell that summary, studying what went on in Quebec, says, I think, that Bill 101 -- that`s the way we call our language legislation -- is a protection for all the basic rights, social and cultural, of our English-speaking minority, and that there is no reason to doubt that they are well treated.

LEHRER: Well, as you know, there is a group of English-speaking Quebeckers...

LEVESQUE: Yeah, and they came down...

LEHRER: They picketed you today at the National Press Club earlier today, and they claim that this law is "racist and it is designed to subordinate English-speaking Canadians in every aspect of Quebec life."

LEVESQUE: Yeah, but they were supposed to be led -- except I didn`t see him on the way in and I didn`t see him on the way out, I don`t know where he was hiding -- by one of my eminent colleagues, a maverick in the National Assembly in Quebec called Bill Shaw, who`s a dentist from the English part, and the rather hidebound, conservative part of Montreal Island; and he`s a throwback. So he comes to Washington with some signs; and you can always fool a few of the people some of the time. It`s easy to say "racist." I even saw something even worse than that. There was a sign there saying "National Socialism," you know what that brings back.

LEHRER: Sure.

LEVESQUE: I mean, you can slander people anywhere if you go far enough.

LEHRER: Let me ask you this: do you want everyone who doesn`t speak French, that nineteen percent of the population of Quebec, to leave Quebec?

LEVESQUE: Good lord, no. I mean, we`ve been -- in many cases their roots go back 200 years. We`d rather forget that they came in as conquerors, but after 200 years, we`re not out to win another battle two centuries later. They`re part of the family, they`re part of the tissue of Quebec. Some nervous Nellies, especially a few that had retirement age and their pile made, when they saw us elected they picked up and went. More power to them, wherever they are. But they were a trickle. The mass of the ethnic communities that mostly speak English and the good Anglo-Saxon`s talk are still there; we`ve lived together for ages. There`s no reason why they should leave, and we`re not beating them over the head. They have a tax- supported school system from kindergarten to university, tax-supported much more heavily than anything in the States, on the English side as well as on the French side, and that is entrenched as a right.

LEHRER: Let me ask you one final question about the language and then we`ll go on to something else. I read something in preparation for your visit which suggested -- it was one of these things that "sources close to Levesque`s camp," all that sort of thing -- suggested that maybe Premier Levesque wasn`t too happy with, or feels now some second thoughts about Bill 101, that maybe it was too fast, went too far. Is that...

LEVESQUE: No; no, I`ve always said one thing, though: that I`ve felt humiliated, and I still do, that we had to legislate. There are very few places in the world -- parts of Belgium have had that -- very few places in the world where a real pressure, an authentic popular pressure, brings you to feel you have to legislate on something that should be like the air you breathe, your own language. And I`d sure as hell like to get rid of the kind of situation that makes it necessary. But it was necessary.

LEHRER: All right. Robin?

MacNEIL: Mr. Levesque, turning to something of immediate-concern to some Americans, your province produces something like four fifths of the free world`s asbestos. One company in Quebec that produces asbestos, the Asbestos Corporation, is American-controlled and your government would like to take over or acquire some larger part of that company. How are those negotiations going?

LEVESQUE: Well, on and off. They`re not going very well, but it`s not a desperate case yet. We think maybe we can still come to an agreement on a purchase price. It`s one company out of seven, I think, two of which are majors and all of them foreign-owned.

MacNEIL: Why would you want the Quebec government to have control of that company?

LEVESQUE: Well, that`s an old story. We`re the first world producers, and by far the first world exporters of asbestos. It has its good points and bad points, but it`s used in hundreds of products, from car brake linings to a lot of construction things; and it is an important material. It has a shameful record in many ways, because as you know it`s been breeding industrial sickness all over the place. One of the worst records, corporate-wise, of any of the companies, the six or seven exploiting asbestos in Quebec, all of them foreign-owned, is Asbestos` record. We talked, and we are fully convinced that we have to take over at least a share of ownership in that field of asbestos in order to do two things. First, you need some ownership in order to follow the development, and second, to create jobs. We were told ever since I was a kid -- because this goes back to the 1880s in Quebec -we were told that if you were anywhere from fifty to 200 miles away from the mine, the pit, that the finished product incorporating asbestos is too unwieldy, too heavy and there was no market for that. We found out different. We found out even that finished products go from the Atlantic seaboard to Europe. So we want a share, a piece of that action, as owners. We want an agreed, equitable price, if not expropriation; like potash in Saskatchewan, which is also Canada, or electricity in B.C., British Columbia, on the Pacific Coast, it has to happen once in a while. There`s no nationalizing, you know -- going on a rampage economically -- intention in that, but that is one sensitive field where we are dedicated, for job creation, for a better share of development of our own resources, to be in there as part of the action.

MacNEIL: In other words, if you and General Dynamics can`t agree on a price, you will expropriate that proportion of shares.

LEVESQUE: The next session starts in March, and if it`s not concluded by then we go expropriation.

MacNEIL: Which means...

LEVESQUE: With arbitration and recourse to courts.

MacNEIL: And with compensation, or without compensation?

LEVESQUE: Oh, look, with full compensation, but arbitrated if we can`t come to an agreed settlement.

MacNEIL: I wonder, Mr. Levesque, since you`ve been at such pains to reassure the American business community about Quebec as an investment since you came to power, whether you worry at all that a gesture like that, or even the threat of it -- what effect that would have on the psychology of American business.

LEVESQUE: Well, asbestos is a relatively -- well, minor sector. It hasn`t got the best of reputations. That`s one thing we`d like to do our share also in correcting; it has one of the most shameful damn records about health protection and security of people involved in asbestos work, and we think that would be part of our duty, too. But to get back to the gist of your question, this was made clear. It`s clear in our platform. from way back, it was made clear the first time I came to the States, which wasn`t exactly a roaring success, an address of the Economic Club in New York two years ago, telling them we don`t intend to intervene all over the place and we`re not out, you know, like far-out radicals, to take over everything. There are specific cases, and one out of two, I think, that I had to mention was asbestos. So the business world and the people involved in investment in Quebec who know the score know that that`s our intention, it`s been made clear, and we`re acting on that; no more.

MacNEIL: I see. Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Levesque, have you seen or do you plan to see any officials of the U.S. Government while you`re in Washington this trip?

LEVESQUE: No; officials of the government, no. I had a meeting, a very pleasant meeting -- it was the first time; I`ve followed his career for a long time and I think he`d heard about us, too -- with Senator Muskie, because he`s our next-door neighbor and a senior legislator here; and we talked about some of the problems of the eastern part, and we hope to get together again, maybe back home, but that`s as much as...

LEHRER: Have you had any conversations at all with representatives of the U.S. State Department or any of that sort of thing?

LEVESQUE: Well, yes. I`ve met some, I suppose, whatever level they were, that you get to meet along the way, but never in any kind of official -- and we don`t look for that. We`re not looking for any kind of lobby here or support officially. We`re just trying to get, in quarters that count, very modestly -- we can`t afford, you know, an all out effort -- with visits here and there, to try and get an honest assessment, as much as possible, a factual assessment, of what`s going on. Information, that`s all.

LEHRER: You`ve made several trips to the United States since...

LEVESQUE: Yeah, on and off.

LEHRER: To Louisiana, California and so on, since you were elected.

LEVESQUE: Well, I chose, if possible, some of the most pleasant parts of this country.

LEHRER: Right. I read today that you`d made more trips to the United States since your election than you had to other provinces of Canada; is that so?

LEVESQUE: Yeah; right.

LEHRER: Well, obviously you`ve got something in mind that you want the United States either to do or not to do, or you wouldn`t be paying so much attention to it. What is it?

LEVESQUE: Look, it`s so simple that it probably sounds simplistic. But about, I don`t know, something like seventy percent of our export market is here. But that export to the States is also rather sensitive, strategic in a way; its pulp and paper, it`s some minerals, you know, some iron ore, things like that. So it`s important to us and I think it`s important in quarters that count in the United States. We want to maintain that; we want to maintain an old friendship. We`re close to you, and we`re close in many ways. A few million of your American fellow citizens have Quebec French roots, family ties, and they`re still very alive. They haven`t forgotten. They`re loyal Americans. So all of that makes us close. And I don`t see any bloody reason whatsoever that a democratic change should be distorted and painted in the gloom and doom colors that I`ve seen sometimes in the media...

LEHRER: You feel that that`s what`s happened here in the United States?

LEVESQUE: Sometimes, I said. Nobody can say he can manipulate, except with an incredible effort that I can`t imagine, American opinion in the sense of 225 million Americans going all the same way. There`s a lot of American opinions. But it hurts when you see some of those distortions. There were some about the Jewish community in Montreal, which I think is one of the, basically, best integrated communities in the Jewish world -- you know, outside Israel. You see distortion about things like that, outright calumny, by opponents who, after all, it`s supposed to be the rules of the game. If we can redress it a little bit, that`s all we`re asking for.

LEHRER: Is your message basically that the United States, officially or unofficially, or any other kind of "l-y," has nothing to worry about from an independent Quebec?

LEVESQUE: Nothing substantial to worry about, except maybe rearranging some addresses and finding out about new names, but is that the end of the world? Basically, no.

LEHRER: You expect to have good relations with the United States if independent Quebec comes off?

LEVESQUE: Can you see any possible reason why not? We`re a democratic society, just as basically democratic as you are. We`re part of this continent from the word go. We don`t intend to drift away into the Atlantic.

LEHRER: Speaking of going, that`s what we have to do.

LEVESQUE: Thanks.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: Thank you, Mr. Levesque. Good night, Jim.

LEHRE R: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That`s all for tonight. We`ll be back tomorrow night I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.