|
"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
|
