|
"Symbolic Politics"
Windsor, Ontario
April 28, 1996
Canadian unity is an issue with many dimensions. But by far the dimension that
has received the most attention is the emotional debate about two words. Our
country may die because we are not able to clarify what we have in mind when we
are for or against these two words.
Two weeks ago, in St-Hyacinthe, our friends in the Quebec wing of the Liberal
Party of Canada did some good work and came up with a set of proposals, but they
included a proposal that consisted in changing those two words. It wasn't
exactly a resounding success, and everything else was scrapped. Nothing was
retained from all the work they accomplished. I was in Edmonton the other day
and I said that I would talk about the Canadian federation, how it works and how
we can make it work even better, but the only thing that was noticed was that I
didn't talk about those two words.
My subject today will not be so much these two words, but why the debate has
focussed so much on these two words. The answer is that our country is sick of
symbolic politics. And Canada may die from this disease. I'm very happy to speak
about this subject with you today, with Liberal friends, who in 1992 stated
their public support for the recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness at their
biannual convention.
It is good to be talking to Liberal friends here in one "foyer
principal" of Canadian Liberalism -- Windsor, Ontario.
When you think of Windsor, you think of the great Liberals who have shaped
this city and our country - like Paul Martin Sr., Eugene Whelan, and, of course,
Herb Gray.
And it is good to see that their spirit is being carried on by the great
Liberals of today, like Paul Martin Jr., Susan Whelan, and, of course, Herb
Gray. We are fortunate that all of them will continue serving Canada for many
years to come, especially our friend Herb Gray, whom we need so much as Liberals
and Canadians.
Our country is sick from symbolic politics, and as I have said, it may die
from this disease. In symbolic politics, unlike ordinary politics, everything
becomes a matter of black and white. Positions are turned into sacred ideals on
which no compromise is possible.
Every shade of meaning, every difference of opinion becomes an insurmountable
obstacle, an insoluble contradiction of principles. These are the consequences
of the symbolic politics that has plagued Canada for so many years.
Our propensity to interpret different points of view as irreconcilable
oppositions of principle may be the worst threat for the unity of our country.
One thing I dislike about politics is the way that damaging rhetoric is
casually used. I think we all as politicians, as journalists or public figures,
or simply as citizens, should make an effort to be more careful with our speech.
What we see too often in politics is a trivialization of ugly terms like
"racism" and "victimization". If you listened only to
speeches in the House of Commons or media talking heads, you might think Canada
has differences of race, language, and regionalism that are completely
unresolvable, when in fact we have one of the best records of human rights and
cultural cooperation in the world.
Let us consider some recent examples. In the House of Commons, some Reform
members of Parliament have begun referring to Native land claims settlements,
Quebec's language laws, or a census question asking people to specify their
ethnic origin, as "racist". Now, you may disagree with some of these
things. Personally, I strongly objected to the Office de la langue française
when it attempted to restrict the distribution of kosher foods for the Passover
holiday because it was not labelled in French. That was insensitive and hurtful.
But it is irresponsible to use loaded terms like "racism" to describe
these problems.
The language of victimization is also dangerous. We are all tired of the Bloc
Québécois constantly pointing to every real or perceived slight towards Quebec
or French-Canadians as a "humiliation". I get angry when I hear Lucien
Bouchard say that Jean Chrétien, who has represented Quebecers for thirty years
in the House of Commons, wants to see Quebecers on their knees. This is also
dangerous rhetoric which appeals to the darker side of nationalism.
But the rhetoric of the anti-nationalists is sometimes just as dangerous.
Some very prominent commentators have said that any kind of nationalism is
inherently ethnic, chauvinistic, and racist. Historically, however, we have seen
examples of nationalism being used for good as well as evil. Nationalism may be
a force used to build social solidarity to achieve common projects - those
projects can be good or bad, and it is these projects that we should judge, not
the idea of nationalism.
Canada has always been a country of diverse national identities. D'Arcy McGee
and Georges-Etienne Carter said that there were four cultural nations within
Canada at their time - the French, the English, the Irish and the Scots - but
that, collectively, Canadians formed one political nation. There are different
forms of nationalism today in Canada, and they are expressed in different common
projects. They are not inherently racist simply because they appeal to different
national solidarities.
Today's Quebec nationalism is a modern outgrowth of the older French-Canadian
nationalism of Georges-Etienne Cartier and Henri Bourassa. It has been used to
promote different political projects over the past thirty years, some of which I
support, some of which I have fought against. Let us judge nationalism - whether
Quebec nationalism or any other nationalism - by its effects. It is a
trivialization and banalization of dangerous language to simply say that all
nationalism is racism.
One of the most destructive elements of the debate over Meech Lake was the
suggestion that Quebec, if recognized as a distinct society, would somehow use
this to suppress the rights of women, minorities or any individual in the
province. The economist Pierre Fortin best captured the intense feelings of
rejection that Quebecers felt at that time. Fortin wrote: "In rejecting
Meech, the rest of Canada signalled to Quebec that it didn't believe Quebec was
capable of reconciling the defence and promotion of its identity with the
imperatives of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
In other words, many Quebecers concluded: why should we try to share the same
country with people who do not have any confidence in us and see us as less
liberal and democratic than they are?
This sense of rejection, because of the dangerous use of symbolic politics,
is a major reason why support for independence in Quebec rose from about 30% in
1987 to almost 70% in 1990 - right after Meech Lake.
So I would ask all of us in the next few months to be careful in our
assessments and our rhetoric, to avoid the emotionally laden language of
symbolic politics that could destroy this country. We cannot allow Canada to die
of symbolic politics.
Check against delivery.
|
