|
"RESPECT FOR DEMOCRACY IN CANADA"
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS TO
THE FACULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITÉ DE
MONTRÉAL
MARCH 18, 1998
"Canada was born, 121 years ago, as the result of a process that drew
on the sources of dialogue, negotiation, and openness." [translation]
Lucien Bouchard, July 1, 1988
Today, as I have the pleasure and the honour to
be the guest of the Students' Association of the Faculty of Law of the
Université de Montréal, I have many memories of the 11 years I spent teaching
political science just a stone's throw away, at Lionel Groulx Hall -- I won't
comment on the name of the hall... They are fond memories, because I believe
that I have always succeeded, with your help, in overcoming an even greater
barrier than political partisanship, namely, academic rivalry. There is little
love lost between the noble disciplines of law and political science. A jurist
once told me that, outside the rule, there is only anecdote, and so political
science is the science of anecdote... but I won't tell you what political
scientists have to say about jurists! I prefer to think back happily on the law
students I have known who have ventured into political science, on your library,
in which I have spent many long evenings, and on your professors, including the
one who now sits across from me in the House of Commons, Professor Daniel Turp.
I would also like to pay special tribute to
another of your professors, André Tremblay, speaking as one pro-democrat to
another. Because democracy, of course, is what we will be talking about today:
respect for democracy in Canada.
I will affirm that the history of Canadian
democracy, even with its shortcomings and its darker pages, compares favourably
with the progress of democracy in other countries. There are few histories
closer to the democratic ideal than the history that Quebecers have written with
other Canadians. Of course, Canada can learn from other democracies; for
example, we cannot boast of the most democratic Senate in the world! In general,
however, democratic progress has been achieved in better conditions here than
elsewhere.
March 11 marked the 150th anniversary of
responsible government in Canada. On this occasion the historian Ged Martin, a
professor at the University of Edinburgh, wrote:
"In the crucial combination of mass
participation, human rights and self-government, Canada's history is second to
none in the world."
I can think of no achievement of which a country
could be more proud.
If we were fully aware of this, we would have no
doubt celebrated the 150th anniversary of responsible government in Canada as
loudly as the French rightly celebrated, on January 13, 1998, the 100th
anniversary of Émile Zola's article "J'accuse".
We must understand the extent to which
parliamentary democracy is for humanity a very recent and still incomplete
victory. When I was a university student in the late 1970s, Eastern Europe,
almost all of South America, a large part of the Mediterranean region and Asia
all lived under authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Even in democracies,
parties advocating the dictatorship of the proletariat found a wide audience.
Here in Canada, leftist theories hostile to parliamentary democracy were making
inroads in the labour movement and in our universities...even our law faculties.
The wave of democratization that has swept
through the last two decades of this century is one of the most extraordinary
phenomena in the history of humanity. Millions of human beings now enjoy
democratic rights that their parents never had. This must make us, as Canadians,
see how lucky we are to belong to a country that has been a pioneer of
democracy.
1. The advance of democracy in Canada
A pioneer of democracy is an apt description of
our country. It is true that elected assemblies were established in Virginia in
1619 and in Massachusetts in 1634, but we followed, with Nova Scotia in 1758,
Prince Edward Island in 1773, New Brunswick in 1785 and Lower and Upper Canada
in 1792. It is an exceptional and admirable fact that, since 1792, our country
has almost always been governed by a political regime comprising an elected
assembly.
Those assemblies were elected by limited
suffrage, in accordance with rather rudimentary procedures. Expanding the
franchise and cleaning up electoral practices turned out to be difficult
achievements for all fledgling democracies. There again, the Canada of the 19th
century was a leader.
Census-based suffrage was established in Canada
following essentially the same rules as in Great Britain, but because our social
structure was more egalitarian and property less concentrated, suffrage was in
fact less restricted in Canada.
The powers of the first elected assemblies were
much more limited than those of parliaments today. Here again, Canada was at the
forefront of reform. As I said earlier, the system of responsible government in
Canada is now 150 years old, one of the oldest in the world. Specifically, it
was on March 11, 1848, that Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine became the first Prime
Minister of Canada -- which was then known as the Province of Canada -- after
the coalition of reformer parliamentarians in the two Canadas that he led with
Robert Baldwin convinced the Governor General to appoint a Cabinet that had the
support of the majority of the assembly. From that moment onward, the legitimate
link between government and governed was established. Responsible government had
also been established in Nova Scotia a few weeks earlier. Those elected
assemblies had powers that were quite extensive for that period, especially
since, because we have never had a real aristocracy, our non-elected upper
chambers did not have the same influence as those in Great Britain.
It would have been far preferable if the colonial
authorities had consented to responsible government without a single drop of
blood being spilt, that is, without the rebellions that were put down in Lower
and Upper Canada, as Quebec and Ontario were then known. On the whole, however,
the victory of democracy was achieved here under much more peaceful conditions
than elsewhere, without the need for bloody revolution to abolish royal
despotism or civil war to abolish slavery.
As well as their democratic dimension, the
rebellions of 1837-38 in Lower Canada had a national dimension, to which the
Durham Report's advocacy of the assimilation of French-Canadians reacted. But it
must also be realized that the emerging liberal democracies of the 19th century
considered active homogenization of their populations and linguistic
assimilation to be the standard to follow, in particular by means of a
one-size-fits-all public education system. In the words of the linguist Jacques
Leclerc:
"The centralizing authoritarianism which
consists of unilaterally imposing a single language throughout a territory and
ignoring linguistic pluralism [...] was standard practice in the 19th
century." [translation ]
Today, we tend to forget just how recent the
value of linguistic and cultural pluralism is in democracy. Even the liberal and
progressive thinkers of the last century tended to see assimilation as a
necessary condition for equal opportunity for individuals. Durham, for example,
while certainly a staunch imperialist, a narrow-minded advocate of assimilation,
un "mange-Canadiens", was also, and here is the paradox, a liberal
enamoured of equal opportunity, who was nicknamed ‘Radical Jack' at home and
supported the right to vote, public education and land reform. His report
recommended that responsible government be established in Canada. In the same
era as Durham, one of the great thinkers in the history of liberalism,
Tocqueville, sought the means to assimilate Algerians into French civilization.
What is exceptional in Canada is not that
assimilation was sought, but that it was not achieved. The union of the two
Canadas by which Durham hoped to assimilate French-Canadians instead paved the
way for the alliance of Baldwin and Lafontaine. The English Protestant and
French Catholic populations laid the foundations for agreement, rather than
scrapping, as they had hitherto done too often wherever historical circumstances
had brought them together. Without that agreement, who knows what would have
become of the French fact in Canada? There have been and still are too many
Francophone Canadians who have lost their language, but it would be difficult to
find a country with a better counterbalance to the forces of assimilation, in
today's world where, for the first time in the history of humanity, the number
of languages spoken is decreasing rather than increasing.
We must always place ourselves in the context of
the time. For example, one might feel that it would have been better if the
Constitution of 1867 had been put to a referendum, rather than simply being
approved by the Parliament of the Union. But the fact remains that the
parliamentary system that prevailed in the united Canada in the 1860s "was
in some respects in advance of any other in the world at that time" (S. J.
R. Noël, Patrons, Clients, Brokers, p. 174). Even today, there are too few
countries which, like Canada, were born in their modern form from an act of
Parliament rather than an act of violence.
2. Five conclusions drawn from our
history
If I had the time, I would continue this
retrospective on our history to try to explain why Canada is seen throughout the
world as a country which is one of the most respectful of democracy and
universal values. But it is time to sum up and to each draw our own conclusions
about the birth of our democracy. Here are five conclusions that I propose.
1. Let us never forget that the advanced
democracy Canada has inherited from its history is also a Quebec achievement. It
didn't come about against us or in spite of us, it came about with us. We can be
proud of that. It is in this democracy that we have developed our own culture
and our own spirit. We shall never know what might have happened if Canada had
remained under the French regime. Perhaps Napoleon would have sold us to the
United States at the same time as Louisiana to bankroll his European wars, and
we would have been swallowed up in the ‘melting pot'. But history is not made
of ‘what ifs'. It is in Canada, with mutual assistance between Quebecers and
other Canadians, that Quebec society has flourished with its own character.
2. Let us remember that we have learned from our
history tolerance and respect for opposing opinions. Especially since we are
involved in one of the most difficult debates a society can have, that of
secession, we must steer clear of impugning motives, demonizing opponents and
voodoo politics.
That leads me to some comments on the Supreme
Court reference. I will never say of those of you who disagree with the
reference that you are bad democrats. I simply think that you seriously
underestimate the difficulties posed by trying to reconcile secession with
democracy. As fellow democrats, allow me to outline the viewpoint of the
Government of Canada.
It is customary in democracy that when there is a
major disagreement not only of substance, but also about the legal procedure
that ought to be followed to resolve that disagreement of substance, the parties
turn to the courts to obtain the necessary legal clarification. That is exactly
what the Government of Canada has done in this case. It has not asked the judges
to decide in the people's stead whether secession is the right choice. It has
asked them whether an attempted unilateral secession by the Government of Quebec
would have a legal basis, as that government claims, or would not, as the
Government of Canada claims. This is a purely legal question, to which the
answer, in the circumstances, will clarify the democratic debate.
The fundamental question in this case is as
follows: if the Government of Quebec proclaims itself the government of an
independent state, do citizens and other governments have a legal obligation to
consider it as such? If, as the Government of Canada believes, the answer to
this question is no, from the perspective of both domestic and international
law, this is something that it is better to know as soon as possible. There are
few things more dangerous in democracy than a government that places itself
outside the legal framework yet still demands obedience of citizens. As
law students, you well know that the rule of law is essential to democracy,
whereby no one is above the law, especially not the lawmakers. You well know
that majority rule is not the be-all and end-all of democracy, and that a simple
majority obtained in a referendum does not give any government the right to
annul unilaterally the constitutional guarantees that a country grants to its
citizens and its minorities.
The Government of Quebec, for its part, wants to
disregard the Constitution and yet demands obedience of its laws. It wants to
portray secession as a purely political act which does not bind that government
to the law, and yet, that secession would bind citizens and other governments to
its conception of the law. In our opinion, that is just not done in democracy.
Not in an exemplary democracy such as Canada, which Quebecers have built with
their fellow Canadians.
With a clear and honest question and procedure,
Quebecers will never renounce Canada. I truly believe this. Nevertheless, if
Quebecers were to indicate very clearly that they wanted to renounce Canada and
make Quebec an independent state, then the break-up of the country would have to
be negotiated within the legal framework. That would be the only way to proceed
if we want to respect the rule of law and democracy for all and minimize the
serious risks of derailment.
3. Let us compare with other democracies so as
better to judge our own. The hue and cry being raised about this or that
situation in Quebec or in Canada as a whole is utterly surreal when compared
with what is going on in other democracies. I sometimes wonder whether the way
to settle the constitutional problem might not be to insert in section 2 of the
Constitution: "Canada has been unfair to everyone", after which the
case would be closed and we would enjoy together the benefits of our country.
Let me give just two recent examples that closely
affect us Quebecers: the constitutional change of 1982 and, once again, the
reference to the Supreme Court.
The events preceding the Constitution Act, 1982
can be interpreted in different ways, but the separatist leaders are dreaming if
they believe that this episode from our recent history might mobilize
international opinion in their favour. It is impossible to see how a
constitutional change supported by every constitutional entity but one, and by
almost every Quebec Member of Parliament, whose centrepiece is a charter of
rights and freedoms that is admirable relative to what exists in the world,
could be condemned by international opinion. On the contrary, our separatist
leaders evoke incredulity when they present grievances that are so bizarre by
international standards.
You know that the federal government has argued
before the Supreme Court that unilateral secession is not a right in democracy.
Those who condemn that position should first ask themselves why a number of
other very respectable democracies believe that their country's territory
belongs to all its citizens and could therefore not be divisible. They should
also ask themselves why the international community is so opposed to the idea
that nations or regional communities could automatically have a right to effect
secession unilaterally. I suggest that it is because it would be very difficult
to determine to whom that right might be granted, that such an automatic right
to secession would have dramatic consequences for the international community,
with more than 3,000 human groups in the world claiming a collective identity,
and that the creation of each new state would risk creating minorities within
the state who would claim their own independence. On a more basic level, a
philosophy of democracy based on the logic of secession would incite groups to
separate rather than to work at coming closer together and understanding one
another.
Rather than advocating a right to secession, the
international community focuses on the rights of populations with distinct
characteristics to preserve their culture and have their own institutions within
a larger community. In other words, the right of self-determination translates
in democracy precisely into the type of arrangements provided by our federation.
4. We need to strengthen and improve our
democracy, and the best way of succeeding is to do it together. Together,
different populations, speaking different languages and not always having the
same cultural references, have learned to tolerate, appreciate and help one
another. That difficult learning process has won us international recognition
today as one of the countries most tolerant and open to ethnic diversity. To
separate, especially along French-English fault lines, to undo what has united
us from the outset, would mean much more than the economic problems predicted by
the vast majority of economists: it would be a moral defeat. We have learned too
much from our history not to see that sharing this generous federation together
makes us all better citizens.
5. Let us realize that our country's true
greatness lies in that ability to give tangible expression to universal values.
What is most admirable in Canada has less to do with what is particular to it,
such as its oft-sung vastness, than with what is universal. The Canadian ideal
is that of a country where human beings have the best chance to be considered as
human beings.
"Wherever I see what is beautiful, what is
good, what is true, that is my country."
Those words by Rousseau sum up the Canadian
ideal. We must do everything to achieve that ideal, but to do so, we must stay
together. We must keep Canada united and make it even better, for ourselves, for
our children, for future generations of Canadians, but also for all those human
beings throughout the world who love our country as a paradigm of what the world
can become.
Check against delivery.
|
