from the Hungarian On-line service www.hirextra.hu 14.01.2008
By Rita Pálfi
English translation of the interview with Pierre Guimond, Canada’s Ambassador to Hungary, about reforms, multi-culturalism and the relations between Canada and Hungary; about what is expected to happen with the visa requirement, how an external observer sees the political life of Hungary and what changes our admission to the European Union is expected to bring about.
You have been Canada’s Ambassador to Hungary since the fall of 2007. What was your first impression about Hungary?
Very good. The first time I visited Hungary was in 1990. What I can remember is that in those days it was rather a mixed atmosphere. It was fascinating and sad at the same time. I remember the beautiful Parliament building beside the houses that badly needed fixing as the walls were crumbling and the paints peeling off. When I came back years later, it was completely different. The infrastructure had considerably improved. Today one can see wonderful buildings all fixed up that attract tourists’ eyes everywhere. However, after living here three months, I no longer count as a tourist and I have discovered that the picture is a lot more complex with a rather complicated political and economic situation. I must admit that this was not exactly what I expected.
In what way were your expectations different? What is it that surprised you in Hungary?
I expected more willingness to compromise. What is happening with regard to the economic reform, for example, is very interesting for a foreign observer. The reforms initiated by the government are extremely important: these are measures that we also had to take in Canada a few years ago. Of course, the starting point was completely different in Canada (both in historical and political terms). Nevertheless, the conclusion turned out to be quite similar.
The centre-left-wing government (there are no real left and right wings in Canada, there are two big parties: the liberal party, which is more like a left-wing party, and a more conservative party, which is more like a right-wing party, but they both stand more or less in the centre) has recognized that it must not squander the inheritance of Canadian children but it has to do something. The measures taken aimed at freeing the state of some of its duties, so it has been relieved of a number of functions. They have set up self-financing agencies to perform the functions passed on. These agencies were granted a substantial sum by the state upon start-up just like kids are when they leave home.
The differences of opinion between the political parties lied in the methods of changes, whereas the goal was common. There was political consensus, probably also due to the message that came not only from the government but also from experts saying that the state must not have such a high amount of debts. The measures did not cause a big social shock.
In Canada, we could achieve the goal to simplify the economy and today there is already some surplus in our budget. As the Prime Minister pointed out, it is much more difficult to spend the surplus. When there are constraints, we take away a little from everyone, which is equally bad for everyone. However, when there is a surplus to be distributed, everyone would like to get a share, which makes people more frustrated and it is more difficult to make a just decision. To sum up, we also had a debate about the economic reform about ten years ago.
In Hungary, the number of government officials and their relative efficiency surprised me. Since I came here, I have had a number of conversations with different people who support the government and I told them how we tried to solve similar problems in Canada.
In addition, there are really tough political debates in Hungary, there is no consensus in terms of goals, i.e. where they want the country to head for. These were my first observations.
You arrived to Hungary when a rough ride was ahead for the country.
Yes, this is true, although it must have been rougher during the commemoration of the 1956 revolution in 2006. The Canadians were really surprised to see what was broadcast in the media at that time, which is unlikely to be a hundred percent accurate, since if we see a car on fire on the pictures, it does not mean there is one on fire on every street corner. There is a fairly large community with Hungarian origins in Canada (about 300 000 people), some of whom are descendants of those who participated in the revolution. I do not wish to comment on the disputes between parties, I believe it is the business of the Hungarian people to settle this problem.
I think everybody would agree that reforms are needed in the economy and the structure of the state. There are permanent problems, we also have some issues in health care, for instance, which need to be resolved.
What is the Canadian system like?
The Health Insurance Plan in Canada falls within the competence of the federal states. Every federal state has their own system, which is financed from local taxes.
Experts say that our system is more economical and efficient than that of the United States. The question has been raised whether to make the service a pay-service. It has been completely free with a few exceptions: for example, we have always had to pay for dental services.
Are there other issues as well?
There were two major debates in relation to this subject in Canada. The first one was the issue of reducing costs. It has been noticed that people who think that they are sick tend to “do some medical shopping”. They go to see a doctor and if they are not satisfied, they go to see another one and if they are still not satisfied, they go to the third one. All this for the same conclusion: “You are ill.” or “You are not ill.” or “You have this or that disease”. This was the first issue considering that if people have to pay a small sum when they go to see a doctor, they might not see a lot of doctors.
The second issue, which is applied by several federal states, is the problem of medicines. Medication used to be free for elderly citizens. It is still free, although there is a certain annual sum up to which the state finances the medication of the elderly and those who are very sick but above this limit it does not.
Another issue is whether to allow hospitalisation in such hospitals where everything has to be paid for in case of such operations that are not critical. In other words, what happens if someone decides not to wait until their turn arrives in an ordinary hospital but would like to go to a private clinic for money, of course? This is quite a topical issue now.
In Canada, we examine both the American and the European models and try to find the best compromise between the two, such a solution that probably works more effectively than in a few European countries and at the same time, people are not left without medical services if they have no money. Health care and education have always been two of the most important social issues. Debates are more or less the same everywhere.
What was the debate about in terms of education in Canada?
It was about tuition fees. I remember I was still a student when we were struggling with the same problem. Every year, we either went on strike or started a protestation campaign when the government wanted to raise tuition fees, etc. We still have tuition fees, which are fairly high, yet a lot lower than in the United States. Students have to take their studies seriously so that they can repay the tuition fees to the state from their salaries when they start working. However, there are also state and private scholarships to help them.
Based on the above, I get the impression about Canada as if it was a combination of the best practices of the United States and Europe.
This is true. We do not have to follow either model. We live in North America and our culture is North American. We agree on a lot of things with the United States: since we share the same continent, we agree on issues regarding regions and the environment. Likewise, we also have very intensive economic relations with them. However, in terms of values, Canada is a lot more diversified due to the immigrants. Every year, we welcome such a number of immigrants that corresponds to one percent of the whole population (this means about 300 000 people). Apart from Canada, only Australia has such an active (receptive) immigration policy.
The biggest difference as compared to the European Union is that we select. Whoever wants to come to live in Canada has to meet certain requirements. Of course, we sometimes make an exception in cases such as family re-unions or refugees. This is what makes our society more global, in which we take pride.
We are fairly well-prepared when it comes to the challenges of globalization: with Canadians who speak all the languages of the world and are able to work in every culture and in any circumstances as businessmen, politicians or diplomats. My colleague’s family, for example, is Slovenian, so she speaks Slovenian. A lot of our ambassadors were born in countries other than Canada. We are very proud of this. More than half the population of Toronto (the most highly populated city in Canada) were born in countries other than Canada. Our current governor, for instance, was born in Haiti and his first language is Creole. This is what we call the policy of multi-culturalism.
The fact that everyone looks more or less the same is also one of the surprising characteristics of Hungary. If we see someone who is not Caucasian, he/she is bound to be a diplomat or a foreigner. Sometimes I feel an inclination to ask: Where are the others, those who are different?
Racism is a problem to a lesser or a greater extent all over Europe. The people living in Canada come from all over the world: are there no tensions there?
The problem is not really racism but intolerance. And the real problem is not intolerance but tolerating intolerance: when we tolerate the manifestations of intolerance, and unfortunately, there are indeed some in Europe. It might be a big threat if we do not recognize that it all starts with intolerance, continues with racism and ends up like what happened in Europe in the middle of the 20th century. This is also why I was fascinated by the Holocaust Museum here, since the exhibition is arranged to follow the different phases of Nazism and not a chronological order. It starts with the lack of respect towards “others”, followed by the deprival of one’s rights, dispossession, deprival of one’s dignity and eventually the taking of lives.
Of course, the last phase is out of the question in Europe today. However, the threat is that we fail to recognize the first phase. It is normal that those who have lived to see something like this are afraid of it.
Tolerance is a good thing unless it is towards intolerance. Each country has their own internal debates: in some countries, the manifestations of intolerance are much more fierce than in others.
Nevertheless, the state, which is the only possessor of power and law, has to pay attention to this. We as diplomats are only observers and if we find the situation disturbing, we may raise our voice discreetly.
What is the situation like in Canada?
Strangely enough, the debate is different in nature: it is about adaptation, the concessions that the majority, who are becoming more like the minority in Canada, have to grant. Compromises have to be made for the sake of the basic needs of the minorities. Interesting debates might come out of this. For example, for certain people who are not religious or not catholic it is not acceptable that there is a Catholic symbol in the Parliament: the Parliament that is open to people of any religion. Another typical example is a case that happened with a Sikh person a few years ago: in their culture, it is compulsory to wear a turban. Yes, but what happens if he wants to work for the Police? People who work for the Police have to wear a helmet. The solution was a new design that is a helmet and a turban at the same time. The same problem came up in relation to women wearing headscarves. Upon the elections, the question was raised that if someone wanted to vote in headscarves, how she could prove her identity. The Election Committee would have allowed the headscarves but the political parties objected to it. Now there is a bill and there are debates on this issue.
A lot of Hungarians would like to know what will happen to the Canadian visa requirement.
We are aware that this causes a problem for the Hungarian government, although the number of visa applications rejected is very low, less than 5 percent and it is gradually decreasing. The reason why we require a visa is not to prevent the free flow of people but to ensure that those who visit Canada will comply with the laws of the country, will not work and will have enough money while they are there and will go home in due time. Our visa service is very quick, it just takes one day to get the visa in a simple case.
The Hungarian government is negotiating with Canada just like with the U.S. about exemption from the visa requirement, especially after our admission to the Schengen zone.
This is not a question of negotiation, since it is not bilateral but it depends entirely on the Canadian party. We have the visa requirement against a lot of countries and there are about 45-50 countries that have an exemption, including the EU countries (also some new members like the Czech Republic, for instance). We are aware that the visa requirement causes a problem for the new member countries and we are working on the solution.
This is more like a dialogue rather than a negotiation. A delegation of experts visited Hungary last November. They investigated technical issues such as the method of issuing travel documents, the immigration policy and the frontier control activity of Hungary. They reviewed a high number of criteria and made a decision based on the result of this review. Of course, we also reconcile this question with the U.S., since we share the same continent and the longest frontier line in the world. The criteria are fairly strict due to the “risk” of receiving such people in our country who should not be granted entry.
The question of Hungarians who immigrated to Canada and the Hungarian community in Canada has been brought up, especially after the revolution of 1956. To what extent do they influence cultural and economic relations between Hungary and Canada?
I have recently met a group of Canadian businessmen, several of whom emigrated from Hungary in 1956 or were the descendants of the refugees of 1956. Some of them visited Hungary after the political transformation and they got to like it so much that they decided to stay here. They are owners of restaurants, are attorneys or work for large international companies, etc.
Peter Munk, who is the founder and chairman of the world’s largest gold production company, Barrick Gold, is an even more spectacular example. He returned to Hungary around 1990 and started to build business connections: he also participated in the foundation of Trigánit, which is owned by Sándor Demján. I could also mention Linamar Corporation (which is a Canadian company producing vehicle components), whose founder, Frank Hasenfratz is also a Hungarian who immigrated to Canada from Hungary. He visited Hungary after the political transformation and founded a vehicle component production factory and subsidiary, which sell their products on the whole European market, in his home town.
There are also some Canadian companies that have no personal connections to Hungary, they just saw an economic opportunity not only in the Eastern European market but the whole market of the European Union. Bombardier has a factory employing a total of 2000 people in partnership with MÁV in Dunakeszi (they manufacture railway trucks, for example).
As regards culture, of course, there are a lot of artists in Canada who are Hungarian by origin and like to visit Hungary, maybe partly also to show their families what is happening in Canada. There is also an increasing number of cultural organisations that promote co-operation between the two countries.
You are not only Canada’s Ambassador to Hungary but also to Slovenia. If you compare the two countries with each other, what differences could you point out?
I have spent a lot less time in Slovenia, I have only been there a couple of times. What is the most important upcoming event for us now is that Slovenia is the next to take over the European Union presidency as of January the first. This is what engages everyone’s attention now, since EU relations are highly important. Coming back to Hungary, the admission of the country to the EU, as a result of which Hungary also has a say in commercial policy, makes a big difference in terms of its relations with Canada. The European Union is a business partner of Canada, therefore Hungary’s membership, i.e. that it now also participates in the decision-making process, has opened a completely new chapter in our relations.
For example, fishing is an important issue for us. Although Hungary has no ocean, it may vote on issues regarding fishing in the EU. We hope that Hungary will be our partner, i.e. share our opinion in certain questions related to fishing.
I believe you have already had a taste of the specialities of the Hungarian cuisine.
Yes, I have and I like it very much, I find it quite unique. I have lived in the Czech Republic (before the separation), Austria and Germany but I can tell you that as compared to these countries, Hungarian cuisine is completely different, even though one can notice certain common elements like the Vienna schnitzel. My favourite meal is the fish soup Szeged style. I am very lucky because the embassy has an excellent Hungarian chef who, of course, likes to serve up Hungarian specialities on a regular basis. I cannot remember the names of all the dishes but I can tell you that I have tried almost everything that you can possibly find on a Hungarian menu: cabbage, stew and goulash are very nice in every variation.
And how about the desserts?
I am not too keen on desserts but they are also very nice. This reminds me that I am a big fan of the small unsweetened round cakes called „pogácsa”.
How much do you know Hungarian literature and films?
I must admit that I am not a big expert in terms of either literature or movies.
I know some productions that were made with Canadian co-operation. For example, the István Szabó film called “The taste of sunshine” is linked with the name of Robert Lantos, Canadian producer (who also has Hungarian origins). I have started to read Imre Kertész’ books, I find them really fascinating. I would also like to read the books of some other famous and popular writers.