|
"The Ethic of Federalism"
A paper presented to Ideas in Action:
a conference on Politics and Law
in honour of Peter Russell
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
November 15, 1996
"No one can appreciate the advantages of a federal system more than
I. I hold it to be one of the most powerful combinations favouring human
prosperity and freedom. I envy the lot of the nations that have been allowed
to adopt it."
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, J.P. Mayer and Max Lerner, eds.,
New York: Harper & Row, 1966, p. 154.
"They were placed like great families beside each other, and their
contact produced a healthy spirit of emulation. It was a benefit rather than
otherwise that we had a diversity of races."
George-Étienne Cartier, Confederation Debates, 7 February, 1865.
"Quebec nationalists cannot push their nationalist projects
through to completion ... without abandoning the practice of mutual respect
and tolerance that has been the essential condition for whatever the peoples
of Canada have achieved together as citizens of a single state."
Peter H. Russell,"Can Quebeckers Be a Sovereign People?", Canada
Watch, 4:38-9 November/December 1995, p. 38.
Peter Russell's work goes to the heart of the Canadian debate, reaching
values beyond the inevitable constitutional squabbling. We Canadians do not want
to choose between universal solidarity and respect for cultural diversities. We
are strongly attached to both.
"I should regard it as a great misfortune for mankind if liberty were to
exist all over the world under the same features," (1) wrote Alexis de
Tocqueville. That is the very misfortune the Canadian ideal intends to combat.
Canadians know that the quest for what is right, just and good must be plural;
they know that it is by drawing on the best part of each culture, each
individual, regional or historical experience, that we come closer to what is
best in civilization. Canadians know that equality must not be confused with
uniformity. Or at least, those who do not know that yet should read and think
about Peter Russell's work.
That dual quest for the universal and for cultural diversity has been with us
since the birth of our Confederation. We have often strayed from it since then,
and committed grave mistakes and injustices, but the result is this admirable
human achievement that is Canada.
One need only compare the thinking of Georges-Étienne Cartier with that of
Peter Russell to gauge the continuity of the Canadian ideal. In his famous
address on February 7, 1865, to the Legislative Assembly on the proposed
confederation of the provinces of British North America, Cartier set out the
principles which still define Canada today. He first stressed respect for
cultures, using the terms of his era, those of ‘race' or ‘nation'. Cartier
identified four ‘races' which were then very much present: the
French-Canadians, the Scots, the English and the Irish. Had there been others
just as present, he would certainly have mentioned them, for there was nothing
exclusionary in his thinking. Cartier did, however, commit the grave error of
forgetting Aboriginals, an error which Peter Russell has ceaselessly sought to
remedy.
Cartier also spoke of the Catholic and Protestant denominations, noted that
there are many Catholics who are not French, and called again for tolerance and
unity.
"In our own Federation we should have Catholic and Protestant, English,
French, Irish and Scotch (sic), and each by his efforts and his success would
increase the prosperity and glory of the new Confederacy." (2)
Cartier ensured that the federal government would be strong, able to
withstand the American threat -- a threat which at that time was military -- and
also able to carry out large-scale common projects. The provinces, for their
part, would be able to express the specific personality of their inhabitants. He
predicted that the union with new provinces would help Quebec, because his
province would thus be able to vary alliances rather than being merged into a
united province with a rapidly growing Upper Canada. And thus, Quebec today
allies itself on occasion with Ontario for industrial policy, with the Prairies
and the Atlantic provinces for social policy, and with the Western provinces for
international trade policy.
Finally, Cartier wanted Canada to be a "political nation", a nation
of solidarity which transcends race, religion, history and geography, to ensure
that the French in Quebec would never want to break their solidarity with other
Canadians. If we seek a contract at the birth of our federal union, it is
certainly the one expressed by Cartier, which has inspired all of Peter
Russell's work. Quebecers of all origins have helped other Canadians a great
deal to achieve that ideal; they must not renounce it.
The Canadian ideal seeks to guarantee the necessary cohabitation of cultures
through an ethic of federalism. That is the idea I shall develop in the
following text. Although I wrote this text wearing my new hat of minister of the
Crown responsible for advising the Prime Minister on Canadian unity, I believe I
have closely adhered to the academic rigour embodied by Professor Russell.
1. The necessary cohabitation of cultures
At a time when identity-driven aspirations are stronger than ever throughout
the world, the idea that any population with its own distinctive characteristics
should have its own state is completely false. "To each people its own
state" is obviously an impractical idea, but it is also a moral error,
because by learning to have their component cultures live together, states give
their populations the opportunity of elevating themselves. The cohabitation of
cultures within the same state helps human beings to become better citizens, by
allowing them to experience tolerance.
According to Daniel Elazar, there are some 3,000 ethnic or tribal groups in
the world conscious of their respective identities. Of the over 180 politically
"sovereign" states now in existence, over 160 are multiethnic in
composition. (3) The idea of "one people, one state" would cause the
world to explode. This comment from a report by the Secretary-General of the
United Nations is food for thought indeed: "Yet if every ethnic, religious
or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation,
and peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more
difficult to achieve." (4) I have met with my South African counterpart,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of that brand new federation. South
Africa does not have, as we do in Canada, two official languages - English and
French - which are also international languages; it has eleven official
languages, not to mention all sorts of languages that have been accorded some
sort of political status. South Africa is coming out of the vilest possible
experience ever invented by human beings for human beings, the nightmare of
apartheid. Through reconciliation and striving for harmonious cohabitation of
cultures, South Africa, with its eleven official languages, will gradually
regain the strength it needs to take on the human and socioeconomic challenges
it faces. The only solution for South Africa is unity, not fragmentation. It is
surely not Canada, a country so blessed by fortune, that will be for South
Africa and for the rest of the world an example of break-up.
Trying to ensure that everyone is part of a majority wherever he or she lives
would be an exercise in futility. We need to seek the means by which confident,
flourishing minorities and cultures can live together within a single political
structure. The presence and influence of the Quebec minority within Canada
strengthens not only Canadians in the other provinces, but also Quebecers
themselves, through the complementarity of their belonging to Quebec and to
Canada. Without sticking my nose into other countries' affairs, I believe that
this is the same universal value that should be followed for the Scots in Great
Britain or for the Catalans in Spain.
Canada, this country that has become a universal model of openness, tolerance
and generosity, is the last country in the world where identity-based
fragmentation should be allowed to triumph. That would be all the more
regrettable because the reason that Canada is so open, so tolerant and so
generous today is because the French and English, from the beginning, have
striven to get along and to take advantage both of their respective identities
and of the complementarity of their two great cultures. It has not always been
easy; there have been some dark pages in our history, but the end result is this
rich, tolerant society that is Canada.
Our large urban centres -- Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver -- are models of
co-existence that have been able to avoid becoming racist cities, of which there
are far too many examples, and for that very reason, they deserve to stay within
the same state, being so close in spirit despite the geographic distance that
separates them. In fact, a survey conducted by the Swiss Corporate Resources
Group put them among the best metropolitan areas in the world in which to live -
Vancouver finished second, Toronto fourth and Montreal seventh. These Canadian
cities were ranked ahead of Brussels, London, Oslo and Paris, and way ahead of
the highest-ranked American city, Boston, which came in at number thirty. (5) My
own riding of Saint-Laurent/Cartierville is another example of a pluralistic,
harmonious community, a veritable mini-United Nations, with more than 50
different, vibrant nationalities. I always find it to be an inspiration,
because, for me, that is what Montreal, and Quebec, and Canada, are all about:
an ideal of different cultures living together harmoniously within a single
state.
I would like the Spanish to view the flourishing of Catalonia with confidence
as a strength for Spain and not a threat to its unity. I would like the British
to feel the same way about Scotland. I don't want my country, Canada, to serve
as an example to be held up by the anxious majorities of Spain, the United
Kingdom or elsewhere. My dream is that the American Congress, for example,
instead of saying, as we have heard them say, "we don't want to create ‘Quebec'
within the United States, so we don't want to grant additional rights to our
Spanish-speaking minority", will say instead, "let's take inspiration
from what is happening in Canada, where Quebecers and other Canadians live
together in harmony, because they accept one another with complete
confidence." I'd like to hear the European Community stop saying,
"careful, let's not give our regions too much autonomy." I'd like
Canada to be seen as an inspiration for the future, not only for Canadians, but
also for other human beings who are experiencing the cohabitation of cultures
within a single state.
2. The ethic of federalism
There are many ways to have populations live together, but the one I
recommend and am going to discuss here is federalism. Federalism is often
described as being efficient. In my society, Quebec, it is often depicted from
that angle, in terms of profitability or profitable federalism: "Stay in
Canada because we have a profitable federation", Quebecers are told. That's
quite true, because four of the five richest countries in the world are
federations: Canada, the United States, Germany and Switzerland. (6) I am sure
that many readers will be aware of the UN or World Bank indicators that give
Canada top marks in so many areas of human activity. Canada is a remarkable
human achievement, a jewel on the planet, which gives its citizens among the
best quality of life in the world. Nevertheless, we do have some serious
problems, such as too much unemployment and too much poverty, especially among
children. We need to rely on our strengths to tackle those problems, rather than
turning our backs on them.
These positive international achievements are not the result of chance; in
all likelihood, they stem from the fact that our federalism is profitable for
all Canadians. Indeed, federalism as a universal ideal is more than profitable;
it has an ethic which encourages cultures to live together.
More than ever, we need to reconcile the global and the local aspect of
things, which Tom Courchene at Queen's University calls
"globalization", in other words, to reconcile extensive solidarity and
desires for autonomy. Reconciling those two objectives, through federalism, has
served humanity well in the past, and will be more necessary than ever in the
years to come.
As far back as the 19th century, Tocqueville, that great liberal thinker and
prophet of democracy, expressed that idea well:
"The federal system was created with the intention of combining the
different advantages which result from the magnitude and the littleness of
nations." (7)
Isn't that idea still just as true today, at a time of market globalization
and pressure for autonomy? Throughout the world, there are conflicting pressures
both for larger political organizations and for smaller, more regional ones. The
pressure for larger units has been generated by a growing awareness of worldwide
interdependence and a need for greater influence in international
decision-making. A demand for smaller, self-governing political units has arisen
from a need to make governments more responsive to citizens and their primary
attachments: linguistic and cultural ties, religious affiliations, historical
traditions and social practices. These are the pillars of community.
Federalism helps to reconcile these dual pressures. It allows regional
identities to be expressed both at home and abroad. For example, Francophone
Canadians are represented in the Commonwealth, just as Anglophone Canadians are
represented in the Francophonie. By being together, they form a vast, rich
country; both groups have access to the G-7, which they would not have if Canada
were to break up. People in Eastern Canada have as much access to the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) as Western Canadians do to the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).
At the same time, however, Canada is a federation where each province can
have its own perspective and solve its problems in its own way. We have
experienced a situation where Canada's ten provinces had budget deficits; each
of them has found its own way to resolve that situation, and seven of them have
now balanced their budget or are showing a surplus. The method used by New
Brunswick's premier was not the same as that used by Alberta, and will probably
be different from the one Quebec will come up with, with its distinct society
and its own culture. All provinces look to their own strengths, but that does
not prevent them from helping one another through solidarity, which is something
we need now more than ever; mutual assistance through larger entities and
innovation through autonomy.
This leads me to some further comments about the ethic of federalism. The
work of Alan Cairns, a recognized Canadian writer on federalism, clearly
outlines that institutions not only enable us to do things; they also encourage
moral principles. They contribute to the way in which we view the world and
ourselves.
I believe that the two great moral principles that federalism encourages are
tolerance and solidarity.
Tolerance
Federalism as a public philosophy encourages tolerance, which is expressed
through our ability to understand different ways of doing things. Tolerance also
encourages our ability to accept different ways of contributing to the life of a
society. Charles Taylor talks about "deep diversity": (8) citizens
recognize their citizenship in a number of different ways. In its most basic
form, tolerance gives people the freedom to be themselves, so as to help one
another more effectively.
Some people say that we must all be Canadian in the same way, or else our
country is in danger. I believe that's a mistake. The Swiss, for example, have
the most powerful municipal system in the world, and from that extensive
decentralization they derive a source of pride, an additional reason to feel
Swiss. It's the same thing in Canada, where we have strong provinces, as has
been demonstrated in the comparative studies by Ron Watts of Queen's University.
(9) Some Canadians see decentralization as a threat and feel that is why the
country is threatened with break-up. I am convinced that the opposite is true.
Canada would never have been able to survive if it had not been a federation
that ensures that Newfoundlanders can be Canadian the Newfoundland way,
Manitobans can be Canadian in their way, and Quebecers can be Canadian the
Quebec way.
As Peter Russell observed,
"The reality of Canadian citizenship is that at the psychic level it
is extraordinarily heterogeneous. Aboriginal Canadians, Québécois Canadians,
Canadians who identify with minority language communities or with ethnic or
racial minorities as well as Canadians who yearn to identify with a unified
Canadian nation have experienced their connection with Canada historically in
very different ways." (10)
I'm a kid from Quebec City, now living in Montreal, and I have my own way of
being Canadian; I don't have to be Canadian in the same way as someone from
Winnipeg. I know instinctively, however, that sharing this same country with
that person from Winnipeg makes both of us better human beings.
When I'm in my riding of Saint-Laurent/Cartierville and I'm talking with
older people of Jewish, Italian or Greek origin, I almost always have to speak
in English, because they have not been sufficiently integrated into Quebec
society, for all kinds of historical reasons. When I talk to their 18- or
19-year-old grandchildren, however, I can speak in French; I can speak in
English; I can even try my hand at Spanish. Those young people can express
themselves in French, in English, and often in one or two other languages, and
are thus wonderfully equipped for the next century. That's what the Montreal and
the Quebec and the Canada of today are all about: a pluralistic society which
must remain harmonious and tolerant.
It is sometimes said that federalism can work only in a homogeneous society,
with the same religion and language. I could not disagree more. Federalism works
well in a homogeneous society, but it is necessary in a heterogeneous society,
because it promotes tolerance, which a heterogeneous society needs more than
anything else. As Professor Russell has noted:
"the practice of mutual respect and tolerance ... has been the
essential condition for whatever the peoples of Canada have achieved
together". (11)
This reflects the thinking of George-Étienne Cartier:
"Some parties... pretended that it was impossible to carry out
Federation, on account of the differences of races and religions. Those who took
this view of the question were in error. It was just the reverse. It was
precisely on account of the variety of races, local interests, that the
Federation system ought to be resorted to, and would be found to work
well." (12)
Solidarity
Samuel LaSelva, a professor at the University of British Columbia, writes in
a recent book, The Moral Foundations of Canadian Federalism, that:
"Canadian nationhood presupposes Canadian federalism which in turn
rests on a complex form of fraternity that can promote a just society."
(13)
I think that what LaSelva is talking about is that this institutional
structure of federalism is the bearer of a moral principle which I call
solidarity.
That was the idea of Cartier, who said that our federation had to be founded
on "kindred interest and sympathies" between the different
communities.
Solidarity, which I define as a sense of the common good and compassion for
our fellow citizens, enables us to act together, to join forces and pool our
resources. Canadian solidarity is expressed admirably in the principle of mutual
assistance among wealthier and less wealthy provinces, through federal
government transfers. That principle, which is likely carried further in Canada
than in any other federation in the world, means that there are currently seven
provinces that receive assistance from what are now the three wealthiest
provinces: Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. In the 1930s, however, Alberta
received assistance from the other provinces, including mine. Albertans know
that the day might come when they would need Quebecers' help. That's what makes
Canadian solidarity so great. Quebecers are currently benefiting from assistance
from their fellow citizens in the wealthier provinces, and will one day be able
in turn to give special assistance to their fellow citizens in the less wealthy
provinces.
That's the real meaning of Canadian solidarity. It's more than tolerance; we
not only tolerate others as they are, we want to help them be what they are. I
want to help Newfoundlanders to be what they are. I also know that they're not
like British Columbians. As a Quebecer and a Canadian, I want them, in their
turn, to help me to be part of a majority Francophone society in an
English-speaking North America.
The vast majority of Quebecers feel they are Quebecers and Canadians at the
same time, but too many of them believe that they have to choose between their
identity as Quebecers and their identity as Canadians. Many of them feel more at
home in their Quebec environment and are thus inclined to choose their identity
as Quebecers. But why do they feel they have to choose between Quebec and
Canada? Because they think that other Canadians do not accept their difference.
This is a terrible misunderstanding that must be cleared up to guarantee the
unity of our country.
In that spirit, the Government of Canada tabled a resolution, which was
passed by Parliament, on recognizing Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.
In that same spirit, the Government of Canada intends to forge ahead so that the
other provinces can, with complete confidence, recognize Quebec's
distinctiveness in the Canadian Constitution.
3. Conclusion - flexibility, the road to renewal
Federalism, wrote Paul Gérin-Lajoie in his former capacity as Quebec's
Minister of Education, has given human beings a vital tool for coordinating the
aspirations of individual communities, making them stronger and giving them
broader influence. However, he found a precise definition of federalism to be
somewhat elusive.
"What makes federalism so difficult to describe," he concluded,
"is precisely what makes it so valuable as a political instrument: its
flexibility, its versatility, its ability to take any form." (14)
He was right. Canadian federalism is not the same as that found in
Switzerland or Belgium, because the contexts are completely different, and the
challenges for the populations of South Africa or India are not on the same
scale as those facing us in the industrialized countries. Nevertheless,
federalism is helping human beings all over the world to live together more
harmoniously. That is why I am convinced that federalism is a valuable solution
for human societies, a solution that we must preserve for ourselves, our
children, and as an example to the world.
But the current Canadian federal system is not only different from its
counterparts around the globe. The Canadian federalism of today is very
different from that of fifty years ago, and fifty years hence our federation
will have undergone a great deal more evolution. That is one of the strengths of
federal systems: they are flexible enough to adapt and evolve when faced with
new challenges and new contexts.
The flexibility of our federation allows it to respond well to the evolving
aspirations of its different component provinces, regions and cultures. This
adaptability is part of what Carl Friedrich once called the "federal
spirit." He defined that spirit as the ability to compromise and
accommodate, which are also elements of what I earlier called solidarity. (15) A
renewal of Canada based on this spirit is, as Peter Russell has so aptly put it,
"in keeping with the Canadian political genius and with the forms of
political organization which will be the pace-setters in the twenty-first
century." As Professor Russell has suggested, the alternative -- breaking
ourselves down into homogeneous nation-states -- would be to align ourselves
with forces that are receding. (16) I would make one last reference to Cartier's
admirable strength of foresight:
"Nations were now formed by the agglomeration of communities having
kindred interests and sympathies." (17)
It is in this spirit that the federal government is working to renew and
modernize the federation. Our government is working with its partners to adapt
the federation to the evolving needs of the Canadian population, in line with
the moral principles that our system encourages: solidarity and tolerance.
At present, our federal system is undergoing a great deal of change. However,
Canadians have shown creativity at many points during the past decades too,
constantly renewing their federation according to internal needs and external
forces.
The federal system, with its flexibility, can be adapted to face the needs of
each successive generation of Canadians. The changes we are making today are
part of a continuum, stretching from the early days of Confederation into a
future too distant for our imagining. I am convinced that the Canada of the
future will inherit certain characteristics from the Canada of today: it will be
strong, flexible, dynamic, generous -- and united.
This is fortunate, given that the cohabitation of cultures is necessary and,
indeed, the only viable possibility, since neither cultural assimilation nor
cultural separation is practical or morally acceptable.
The Government of Canada is focussed on the future. Since the Throne Speech
in February 1996, we have put forward a plan to reform our federation. We will
do so in a way that will strengthen our precious inheritance from the
generations who have built this country to date.
(1) Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume I, New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1987, p. 330.
(2) Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British
North American Provinces, Tuesday, February 7, 1865, p. 60.
(3) Daniel J. Elazar, Federalism and the Way to Peace, Reflections Paper No. 13,
Kingston: Queen's University, 1994, p. 23.
(4) Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, Now York: United Nations, 1992,
p. 9.
(5) The Ottawa Citizen, Wednesday, January 18, 1995, p. A2.
(6) United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 1994, New
York, Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 104, annex table A5.2.
(7) Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume I, New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1987, p. 163.
(8) Charles Taylor, "Shared and Divergent Values", in Ronald L. Watts
and Douglas M. Brown, eds, Options for a New Canada, Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1991, p. 75.
(9) Ronald L. Watts, unpublished manuscript, 1996.
(10) Peter Russell, "The Constitution, Citizenship and Ethnicity," in
Jean Laponce and William Safran, eds., Ethnicity and Citizenship: The Canadian
Case, London: Frank Cass, 1996, p. 101.
(11) Peter Russell, "Can Quebeckers Be a Sovereign People?", in Canada
Watch, 4:38-9, November/December 1995, p. 38.
(12) Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British
North American Provinces, Tuesday, February 7, 1865, p. 57.
(13) Samuel V. LaSelva, The Moral Foundations of Canadian Federalism: Paradoxes,
Achievements, and Tragedies of Nationhood, McGill-Queen's University Press,
1996, p. xiii.
(14) Paul Gérin-Lajoie, "Canadian Federalism and the Future", in
Gordon Hawkins ed., Concepts of Federalism: Thirty-Fourth Couchiching
Conference, 1965, p. 62.
(15) Carl J. Friedrich, Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice, New York:
Praeger, 1968, p. 39.
(16) Peter H. Russell, "Can the Canadians Be a Sovereign People?",
Canadian Journal of Political Science, XXIV: December 4, 1991, p. 708.
(17) Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British
North American Provinces, Tuesday, February 7, 1865, p. 60.
|
