|
"Canadian Diversity and the Recognition of
Quebec"
Notes for an address to Members of the
Ontario and Quebec Canadian Jewish Congress,
Hellenic Canadian Congress and
National Congress of Italian Canadians
Toronto, Ontario
November 26, 1996
It was very important for me to accept your invitation to talk to you, here at
Holy Blossom Temple, about the main reason I feel Canada must remain united. I
am especially pleased that representatives of Quebec's Jewish, Greek and Italian
communities are here with us in Toronto to share in that discussion.
The main reason that I believe that Canada must stay together has more to do
with what is universal about Canada than with what is unique and specific to our
country. It is certainly true that those things which symbolize our uniqueness,
such as our flag, our national anthem, and the majestic beauty of our vast
territory, fill our hearts with pride. And yet, the real reason that Canada is a
jewel for humanity is that our country is perhaps the most humane country in the
world, where the universal values of freedom, tolerance, and respect for
differences are perhaps most respected. At the risk of contradicting my Prime
Minister, I'll admit that I don't know whether Canada is ‘the best country in
the world'. But I think it would be difficult to find another country where each
human being has a better opportunity to be considered as a human being, whatever
his or her origin or religion, than here in Canada.
Some have said that Canada is an artificial country. If by that they mean
that Canada has overcome so-called natural distinctions of race or ethnicity, to
achieve what is truly universal among human beings, we should take this as a
great compliment.
It is especially fitting that I talk about the search for universal values at
an event organized by the Jewish, Greek, and Italian communities, for in human
history it was in Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome that many of these ideals were
expressed. Not only have your cultures contributed much in ancient times to the
building of human civilization, but your particular communities have played a
major part in the building of Canada, and of the two great cities of Montreal
and Toronto. There are 970,000 people of Italian, Jewish, and Greek descent in
Toronto and Montreal combined. Neither Montreal nor Toronto -- nor Canada itself
-- would be imaginable without your communities. You, who find your roots in
three of the great ancient civilizations, contribute to our pluralistic search
to make Canada a model that can serve as a universal ideal.
"I should regard it as a great misfortune for mankind if liberty were to
exist all over the world under the same features," wrote Alexis de
Tocqueville. The Canadian ideal is a way to avoid this misfortune. Canadians
know that the quest for what is right, just and good must be pluralistic. They
know that it is by drawing on the best part of each culture, each individual,
each regional or historical experience, that we come closer to what is best in
civilization. Canadians know that equality must not be confused with uniformity.
In that sense, the Canadian ideal is the ideal of all humanity. If Canada
were to break up, we would send a terrible signal to the other countries of the
world. Most countries face severe challenges in trying to adapt to cultural
diversity in an era of globalization when diverse populations mingle more than
ever. Canada's break-up would not encourage the cultural majorities in these
countries to show tolerance, openness and trust towards their minorities. On the
contrary, many of them would say: "Don't try to be tolerant, democratic and
decentralized, as the Canadian federation was, because you'll be signing your
own death warrant." The secession of Quebec would be especially tragic,
since Canada's spirit of tolerance, which we all value, emerged precisely from
the need for the French and English to find ways to live together and get along.
It has not been easy, and many injustices were committed in our history. But the
early history of Confederation must be judged in comparison with the 19th
century attitudes elsewhere. At that time, many countries, including France and
the United States, had policies of cultural assimilation, notably through a
"one size fits all" system of mandatory education.
From the very beginning, Canadian history has been marked by a greater
openness to difference, a greater spirit of tolerance than most other countries.
That initial experience between the British and French in early Canada led them
in turn to give a better reception to their new fellow citizens from every
continent. Today, we project our spirit of openness beyond our borders by acting
as a generous country, a citizen of the world, as we have seen in the recent
Canadian response to the crisis in Zaire.
We must not only preserve this Canadian spirit of tolerance, but we must
continually improve on it. We must remember that intolerance is always present
and has been a part of our history. Recently, the unfortunate affair of Quebec's
Lieutenant-Governor, who admitted to youthful ideological errors during the last
war, has reminded the people of my province of a past we would rather forget.
Those Canadians in other provinces who may have been tempted to lecture
Quebecers should read Abella and Troper's book, None is Too Many, to see how
widespread racism was in all of Canada at that time. Let us not forget that it
was not until the 1960s that our immigration policy was purged of racial
criteria.
The reason I am so opposed to Quebec's secession from the rest of Canada, and
that I want to fight against it with every means democracy gives me, is
certainly not because I believe that Quebecers are less tolerant than other
Canadians. No, it is because I am convinced that secession would put tolerance
at risk. There is a great contrast between the tolerance of Quebec society and
the intolerance of the secessionist option. Understanding this contrast may hold
the key to our unity debate.
First, let me talk about the tolerance of Quebec society. In my work as an
academic, I have been struck by the extent to which Quebecers cherish the same
universal values as other Canadians. If you ask Quebecers their opinion on
interracial marriages, for example, you will see the same degree of openness you
see elsewhere in Canada, an openness that is generally greater everywhere in
Canada than in the United States or Europe. If you observe the day-to-day life
of Montreal, you will see that, in spite of geographic distance, that great
multicultural city shares the same culture of tolerance as Toronto, Calgary or
Vancouver, in contrast with most American cities.
You know that I've spent my whole life immersed in the Quebec academic
community, so you won't be surprised to learn that most of my Quebec friends are
sovereignists, or at least have been tempted by the sovereignist option. I know
that those men and women share the same universal values that have brought us
here today. It is because my sovereignist friends share those same values that
we need to dialogue with them and explain that secession would jeopardize the
kind of open society that they prize.
The reason I oppose secession is that its very dynamic would destroy, for a
long time, the spirit of tolerance in Quebec society and would damage that
spirit in the rest of Canada. Secession is the type of divisive issue that can
plunge the most tolerant of populations into intolerance. This can be seen even
now, when secession is merely a possibility, rather than a reality. Since the
referendum, which made secession seem a more realistic possibility than it had
appeared before, we have seen a worsening of the language debate in Quebec which
has shaken the consensus that had prevailed in recent years. Secession is the
only issue that is causing an unhealthy split between Francophone and
non-Francophone Quebecers. We cannot let this mistrust take over the entire
political arena. And yet, that is exactly what would happen in the event of an
attempted secession, especially if it were to occur in an atmosphere of
confusion about the rules and in violation of the rule of law.
We must consider why the secessionist option divides Quebec Francophones,
whereas other Quebecers massively reject it. The fact that non-Francophone
Quebecers do not want secession is not because they reject Quebec society.
Non-Francophone Quebecers consider themselves to be full participants in Quebec
society. But they do not want secession because they do not want to give Canada
up.
Indeed, why should they give it up? Some Francophone Quebecers believe there
is an advantage in doing so: the advantage of becoming a majority. When they
say: ‘We want to be a majority,' it is clear that ‘we' does not include
non-Francophone Quebecers. Jacques Parizeau's famous speech about ‘money and
the ethnic vote' is the explicit proof of that: "If you want to stop
talking about Quebec Francophones, we'll speak for ourselves: 60% of us voted
YES, so that's that!" After such a speech, Jacques Parizeau no longer had a
political future in the Quebec and Canada of today. And yet, that's the state of
mind in which this man would have launched his attempt at secession if the YES
side had won.
Wherever secessionist movements arise in the world, their proponents are
members of a specific ethnic, linguistic or religious group, which wants to
change existing borders to create a new state in which that group forms the
majority. The minorities living in that same region almost never support these
secessionist ambitions, unless the existing state is oppressive and
authoritarian. This is obviously not the case in Canada. Secession cannot be
justified in Canada except by the particular, identity-driven considerations of
a specific group. That is why Quebec secession is a project which favours
exclusion, and would breed intolerance and division among communities that are
now living in harmony.
I'll say it again: the risks do not stem from a feeling of intolerance that
is allegedly greater among Quebec Francophones than among other Canadians.
Rather, it is secession itself and the break-up of Canada which would breed
discord, disturbing suspicions, and feelings of rejection.
Secession would weaken the strong ties of solidarity that unite all Quebecers
above and beyond our linguistic or ethnic differences, as well as those equally
strong ties that unite Quebecers with our fellow citizens in the Atlantic
provinces, Ontario, and Western and Northern Canada. Our universal values impel
us on the contrary to strengthen those ties of solidarity. I want to help my
fellow citizens, be they Aboriginal people, Newfoundlanders or Ontarians, to
express their own way of being Canadian, and to build a better future for their
children. I want to help the Jewish, Italian, Greek and other cultural
communities throughout Canada. And I want other Canadians to help me to
strengthen Quebec society so that the blend of our different cultures makes us
better and stronger. But to do that, we have to stay together. We have to reach
out to one another, rather than listen to the voices of division and animosity.
Because secession is the problem, not Quebec society, and because that
society is such a remarkable element of the Canadian reality, we should
recognize Quebec for what it is: a fundamental characteristic of Canada, which
we all want to support, because it enriches all Canadians, something which we do
not want to lose.
The fact is that, while non-Francophone Quebecers massively reject secession,
a great many of them support recognition of Quebec within the Constitution of
Canada. They consider themselves to be a part of Quebec society, and wish to
remain in Canada, and see no contradiction between these two aspirations.
Although they are excluded by the secessionist option, which is driven by goals
they do not share, they feel strongly that Quebec society is theirs, because
they are helping to strengthen it, along with their Francophone fellow citizens.
In its very distinctiveness, Quebec society belongs as much to them as it does
to Francophones. After all, non-Francophone Quebecers are the only minority in
North America which lives with a Francophone majority. They want to help their
Francophone fellow citizens to flourish in this English-speaking continent while
ensuring their own rights are respected as well.
If Ontario were surrounded by a Francophone North America, all Ontarians,
Anglophones and Francophones, would be in a distinctive situation that would
have to be recognized as such by other Canadians.
Canada has already recognized the French language and Quebec's
distinctiveness in many ways. The Official Languages Act and constitutional
protections for the French language and Quebec's civil code are good examples of
this. These were controversial at the time they were introduced, but are now
accepted as part of Canada's identity. A further recognition of Quebec's
distinctiveness would take the form of an interpretive clause in the
Constitution, such as the existing section 27 of the Charter, which recognizes
the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Today, after fifteen years under the
Charter, nobody would say that this clause has endangered the rights of a single
Canadian. Why should recognition of Quebec be any different?
Recognizing Quebec as a fundamental characteristic of Canada would not have
the effect of giving Quebecers more powers, privileges or money than other
Canadians. Nor would it violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Rather, it would formalize a convention that already exists, under which our
judges are expected to take account of the specific context of Quebec in an
English-speaking North America when they rule on issues that affect the
province, as former Supreme Court Chief Justice Brian Dickson has recently
explained.
The purpose of constitutional recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness is thus
not to give Quebec more powers. I have made that very clear, both in Quebec and
elsewhere in Canada. Those in Quebec or other provinces who want more powers for
their provincial government should submit a list of those powers and explain, on
a case-by-case basis, how that transfer of responsibilities would improve public
service. That is the only acceptable way to proceed. No federation in the world
would agree to put in the Constitution a sort of grab bag that could modify
federal-provincial responsibilities without having any idea in advance of how
that might occur.
I do not see any valid reason for not recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness in
the Canadian Constitution. Some people tell me, "Stéphane, don't make a
big thing about it, it's been tried in the past, people don't want it."
That's a defeatist attitude which I feel insults Canadians' intelligence.
Fatigue and resignation are never good advisors in private life, and they are
even less so in public life, when the fate of a country is at stake. We should
remember all the major reforms of the past, such as votes for women, compulsory
education, and progressive taxation, which were resisted for a long time before
gaining public acceptance.
I am also told that the word ‘distinct' is not the most suitable, because
it has in English a sense of superiority that is not found in French. I happen
to like the expression in French, "Société Distincte," perhaps
because its initials are the same as mine! More seriously, I like the idea of
recognizing Quebec as a society, because the word "society" by
definition includes all of its members. But the form of the wording chosen is
less important than the content of the message that Canadians in all parts of
the country would be sending to Quebecers. They would be saying: ‘We admire
the way that you Quebecers, Francophones and non-Francophones alike, are dealing
with your specific situation in North America, and we want to show our
solidarity with you in your effort to express this Canadian reality, which
enriches us all.' If Canadians made this gesture clearly, without any haggling,
without seeing it as an opportunity to bargain for something else in return; if
they did so because it is right and good in and of itself, they would be taking
a giant step toward national reconciliation and unity.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his government have recognized Quebec as a
distinct society by a resolution in the House. They have made a commitment to
work to convince Canadians to entrench the recognition of Quebec in the
fundamental law of our country. Some premiers have also taken steps in that
direction, as has the leader of the federalist forces in Quebec, Mr. Daniel
Johnson. It is clear, however, that constitutional recognition of Quebec must
first be popular among Canadians. This reconciliation must be made in people's
hearts, not just on a piece of paper signed by politicians.
The representatives of the Greek, Italian and Jewish communities who are here
today want to convince their fellow citizens to recognize Quebec's difference.
That doesn't mean they agree with everything that is happening in Quebec -- far
from it. But they do know that Quebec society, to which they belong, expresses
in its own way the Canadian ideal. They are asking all Canadians in the other
provinces and territories to say loud and clear that they do not want Quebec to
be absorbed into a monolithic, English-speaking Canada, but that they want to be
in solidarity with Quebec, in the same way that Quebec, by its very nature,
helps them to define themselves as Canadians facing a powerful American culture
to the south.
We are very much against secession precisely because we are very much for a
vibrant Quebec society. Through secession, Quebec society would be renouncing
not only Canada, but also the best part of itself. And we are also very much for
constitutional recognition of Quebec precisely because we are very much for a
strong Canada. This issue is greater than all of us. In the next century,
cultural assimilation and cultural separation will be more impractical and
morally unacceptable as solutions than ever before. The only solution is the
cohabitation of cultures, and its name is Canada. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to express that conviction to my fellow citizens, at this defining
moment in our history.
Check against delivery.
|
