Government of Canada, Privy Council Office
Francais Contact Us Help Search Canada Site
What's New Site Map Reference Works Other PCO Sites Home
Subscribe
Archives - Press Room

Archives - Press Room


"The Future of Federalism and Multicultural Identities in North America: The Case of Canada"

Notes for an address by the
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
the Honourable Stéphane Dion

at the opening ceremony of the
4th International Congress of the Americas

Puebla, Mexico

September 30, 1999

I am very pleased to be here with you today and to take part in your discussions centring on the theme "The Americas in transition: challenges of a new millennium." I would like to take this opportunity to talk about an issue that is crucial to many countries and could well become the major issue of the next century: how can populations of different cultures, languages or religions be brought together to develop common objectives which respect their differences?

One of the means that enables peoples with their own identities to work together to achieve common objectives within a single state, is federalism. Of course, this system of government also has a number of other advantages in terms of governance, management of the economy, democratic life, and influence on the international scene. The world's largest democracies are federations, as are many of the most prosperous countries. But the true genius of this form of government lies in its ability to reconcile diversity in unity.

North America is the only continent formed solely of federations, which are closely linked together through a dynamic trade agreement, as well as through many other political and personal linkages. Because federalism is flexible and can adapt to different contexts, our countries have obviously developed different approaches and mechanisms.

It's no accident that the three heads of government, Messrs. Zedillo, Clinton and Chrétien, will be in Canada, at Mont-Tremblant to be exact, from October 5 to 8, for a major international conference where the world's federations will come together to share their experiences.

I don't claim to be a specialist of your federation, so I will limit my remarks to describing how we in Canada try to reconcile diversity in unity. I will leave it to you to determine which elements are applicable and which are not in the very different context of Mexico.

1. Cohabitation of cultures the Canadian way

The Canadian system is founded, above all, on individual rights. Only people with flesh and bones exist concretely, and only they are capable of feelings, liberty, happiness. That is why we deemed it appropriate in 1982 to entrench a charter of rights and freedoms in the Constitution. The Charter recognizes the primacy of fundamental freedoms and authorizes the courts to strike down any legislative measure that does not comply with it.

That being said, individuals maintain or develop affinities through sharing common traits. Some of those affinities are connected with language, culture and religion, and are expressed through collective identities. The Canadian ideal consists in seeing these differences between groups of citizens as the very opposite of a problem, as a strength which, rather than separating citizens, enables them to pursue together the pluralist quest for what is right and good. The promotion of collective identities or affinities in Canada does not mean the negation of individual rights. It seeks to help Canadian citizens develop and thrive. It in no way weakens the feeling of a common Canadian identity. On the contrary, Canadians' acceptance of their plural identities nourishes within them a true love of their country.

Very early on in their history, Canadians were confronted with the reality of their cultural diversity. Not without some difficulties, Canadians of British and French origin learned not only to live together, but above all to work together to build a country of which they can be proud. Today we are fortunate to have two official languages, English and French, which are also international languages, windows on the world. With respect to the more fragile situation of French, Canada has inherited from its history the opportunity, the privilege and the obligation to promote the French language and French-speaking cultures in Quebec, throughout Canada and around the world, and to make that heritage accessible to Canadians of all origins.

As you may know, nine of our ten provinces have an English-speaking majority, while the population of Quebec is 83% French-speaking. For more than ten years now, we have been debating the question of whether the distinct character of Quebec society should be formally recognized. Such possible constitutional recognition could obviously not give Quebecers more rights or privileges than other Canadians. It could only reaffirm the flexibility of the Canadian federation, which must be able to accommodate the different needs of the country's components, including the unique character of Quebec society.

This unique character is easy to identify: Quebec is the only province in which both Francophones and Anglophones can be described equally well as both a majority and a minority. Francophones are a majority in Quebec, but a minority in Canada and a very small minority in North America. Quebec Anglophones are certainly a majority in North America and Canada, but they live their lives in Quebec, where they are a minority. The quest for a harmonious cohabitation between Francophones and Anglophones is pursued in Quebec within a context that is specific to that society. It is incumbent on governments and the courts to take account of that unique character. And that is just what the Supreme Court of Canada does, according to one of its former chief justices, the late Brian Dickson, as well as current Chief Justice Antonio Lamer. In that same spirit, the House of Commons adopted a resolution on December 11, 1995, which calls on the Government to "be guided" by the fact that Quebec constitutes a distinct society within Canada. Similarly, on September 14, 1997, in Calgary, the premiers of the nine provinces with Anglophone majorities explicitly recognized "the unique character of Quebec society." An eventual constitutional recognition of Quebec's specificity would, for all practical purposes, merely formalize its effective recognition.

The quest for enhanced autonomy for Aboriginal peoples is also reconciled with respect for individual rights. The objective must not be for the individuals who make up these peoples to have more or fewer rights than other Canadian citizens. The status of autonomy must instead enable these populations to deal with their respective situations, which they have inherited from their history. It is noteworthy that progress is being achieved on this delicate issue peacefully and within the Canadian constitutional framework.

The Canadian federation, and specifically the constitutional division of powers between the federal government and the governments of the ten provinces, is not organized on the basis of collective identities defined in terms of peoples or nations. Rather, it is individual rights that are still and always paramount. The objective, as set out in the Constitution, is for the federation to ensure that all citizens have, to the greatest possible extent, access to public services of comparable and optimal quality. But that quality is achieved through various means, in light of the different contexts of each province. It is important that each province have the means to pursue this quest for quality in its own way, which is why there are substantial redistribution mechanisms to benefit the less wealthy provinces.

Canada's provinces are equal in status. There are not two or three types of status for a province, there is only one: one is either a Canadian province or one is not. In law, all have the same constitutional responsibilities. In fact, however, some provinces, Quebec first and foremost, have used many more of the possibilities provided for in the Canadian Constitution. A number of federal government policies encourage this flexibility.

We can see that the provinces' equal status is not to be confused with uniformity. It is very much in keeping with the pluralist quest for public service quality.

This is the Canadian way of seeking unity in diversity. It is based on the primacy of individual rights. But it does not establish those rights in the abstract, it takes account of the diverse realities within which individuals exist. Our multiculturalism, our bilingualism and our federalism are all expressions of this union of individual rights and collective realities.

To improve Canada, we must build on its diversity and see it as a strength. But we cannot build on diversity by denying its most fundamental dimension: the inalienable difference which makes every individual, every human person, a unique being. Renouncing the primacy of individual rights, constructing the country in terms of identity-based collective representations as defined by the authorities, be they called peoples, nations or otherwise, and subjugating individuals to those collective identities, is not building unity in diversity. It is postulating a fictitious uniformity within each of those collective constructions.

Conclusion

Federalism as a public philosophy encourages tolerance, which is expressed, in Canada, through our ability to understand different ways of doing things and of contributing to the life of the society.

Some people say that we must all be Canadian in the same way, or else our country is in danger. I believe that they are mistaken. Canada would never have been able to survive if it had not been a federation that ensures that Newfoundlanders can be Canadian in the Newfoundland way, Manitobans can be Canadian in their way, and Quebecers can be Canadian in the Quebec way.

Canadians own conceptions of Canada itself are also extremely varied. For some, Canada is based on the equality of the ten provinces. Others see Canada as the juxtaposition of two nations, English-speaking and French-speaking, of three peoples, Anglophone, Francophone and Aboriginal, or as a multicultural state. There are Canadians who advocate a greater or a smaller degree of state intervention, or of integration into the North American economy, liberal or more conservative values, more or less decentralized federalism, and so on.

Federalism, based on the primacy of individual rights and the maintenance of diversity, makes it possible to reconcile these different ways of being Canadian and of seeing Canada. The ideal pursued by our country, through its federative form, its democratic institutions, its charters of rights, its bilingualism and its multiculturalism, is to enable each of its citizens to thrive in freedom, taking account of the context in which they are evolving, while respecting their collective allegiances. I am not saying that Canada has managed to achieve that ideal. I am saying that the pursuit of that ideal is the key to strengthening our unity.

Some people say that the existence of a separatist movement in Quebec is proof that Canadian federalism doesn't work. I would certainly not have you believe such a thing. Canada is undeniably a country that works, that offers its citizens one of the best qualities of life in the world. That quality of life stems a good deal from a tolerance, an openness of spirit, a mutual trust among different populations.

Of course, there is no single model of federalism. Our federalism is not the same as Mexican federalism or American federalism, for example, because our contexts and the challenges facing us are different. Nevertheless, federalism is likely one of the best responses to the identity- based aspirations being expressed throughout the world. I am convinced that federalism is the way of the future, the way that can best help to foster and promote the values of tolerance and solidarity that we hold dear.

Check against delivery  


  Printer-Friendly Version
Last Modified: 1999-09-30  Important Notices