|
"The Ethic of Federalism"
Notes for an address at the conference
"Identities -- Involvement -- Living Together
in Federal States: International
Aspects of Federalism"
Sainte-Foy, Quebec
September 30, 1996
This is the first time in my new life -- since I left academia upon being
appointed Minister on January 25, 1996, by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien -- that
I have had an opportunity to speak in the vicinity of Université Laval, my alma
mater, about my views on federalism, and to explain why it is a wonderful
invention for the life and organization of human societies. I would thus like to
thank Mr. Alain Prujiner, the director of the Institut québécois des hautes
études internationales de l'Université Laval, for inviting me.
The topics dealt with at this conference are extremely important, because I
am convinced that federalism has withstood the test of time and proven itself to
be a valid solution in the past, as it will also do in the future.
To demonstrate that, I have divided my presentation into three parts. I will
first talk about the necessary cohabitation of cultures. Then I will talk about
what I recommend to facilitate that cohabitation, namely the ethic of
federalism. Finally, I will outline what Jean Chrétien's government has
undertaken to improve the Canadian federation; in that respect I will discuss
one of the most important public policies for all societies today and tomorrow:
labour-market training.
1. THE NECESSARY COHABITATION OF CULTURE
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 Professor Elazar, who is here with us this evening, there are
some 3,000 ethnic or tribal groups in the world conscious of their respective
identities. And yet, there are currently only 185 states recognized in the UN,
86% of which are multiethnic in composition. The false idea of "one people,
one state" would cause the world to explode.
This statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations is food for
thought indeed: "If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed
statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and
well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve."
I recently 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 socio-economic challenges it faces. The only
solution for South Africa is unity, not fragmentation. It is surely not Canada,
a country so blessed by God, 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 the
United Kingdom 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 their earliest
beginnings, 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 chapters 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. 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 look at Catalonia's development 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 ‘Quebecs'
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 about us,
"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 talk about today 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, Quebecers, 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.
I am sure you are 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. 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 happenstance;
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 my colleague Tom Courchene at Queen's University calls "glocalization",
in other words, 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 advantages which result from the
magnitude and smallness of nations."
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 connections, 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 seek out their own inner 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 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": 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 Professor Ron Watts of Queen's
University, who is also here with us this evening. 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.
I'm a little guy from Quebec City, my birthplace, 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 St-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 couldn't agree less. Federalism works
well in a homogeneous society and it is necessary in a heterogeneous society,
because it promotes tolerance, which a heterogeneous society needs more than
anything else.
Solidarity
Samuel LaSelva, a professor at the University of British Columbia who is also
taking part in this conference, but in Vancouver, 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." (page 264) 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 one of the founding fathers of our Confederation in
1867, Georges-Étienne 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
very well that the day might come when they 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 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 has 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. THE PLAN TO REFORM THE FEDERATION
So now it is time for me to talk about the efforts the Government of Canada
is making to improve the Canadian federation and make it more united. A
federation can and must always be improved and adapted to the evolving needs of
its population, but always by relying on the moral principles it encourages.
That is what the Government of Canada has done: since the Throne Speech in
February, we have put forward a plan to reform our federation which will
strengthen our great values of solidarity and tolerance.
I could talk to you about the health and social services system, or limiting
the federal spending power, or clarifying roles in a variety of areas, such as
mining, forestry, social housing, and the environment, but for now I will
restrict my comments to the key sector of labour-market training.
We have given the provinces more flexibility for this public policy that is
so important for the world of tomorrow. Labour-market training is a crucial
sector, because countries such as Canada will maintain their competitive edge
only if they can rely on a highly skilled labour force. So many countries now
offer cheap labour that our labour force must be very highly skilled indeed if
we are to have the ability to stay competitive.
Traditionally, the federal government has gotten involved in this sector for
very legitimate reasons. With constitutional responsibility for unemployment
insurance, it has established programs to help workers break the cycle of
joblessness. Some of those programs, however, were similar to sectoral training
programs offered by the provinces pursuant to their constitutional
responsibility for education.
The Government has therefore taken steps to eliminate any conflict or
overlap, by giving the provinces the opportunity to manage the some $2 billion a
year the federal government currently spends for active employment assistance
measures. The provinces can thus, if they wish, set up their own programs, such
as employment subsidies, income supplements and job creation partnerships, as
well as labour-market services such as counselling and placement.
More than ever before, the provinces will be able to use their own strengths,
their own culture, which has been one of Quebec's claims in particular, and to
work with their partners. The federal government will ensure that those
provinces with a higher unemployment rate will be able to obtain resources from
the Employment Insurance Account, which is the responsibility of the federal
government. It will also ensure that the free movement of labour and Canadian
solidarity are not threatened by this reform, so as not to harm our
socio-economic union and our collective capacity for action. We want to have
effective, complementary vocational training programs throughout the country.
Each order of government will thus have its own responsibilities, and we will be
able to take on the next century with an effective labour framework, thanks to a
good understanding of what Canadian federalism is all about.
CONCLUSION
In summary, cohabitation of cultures is necessary and, indeed, the only
solution, because neither cultural assimilation nor cultural separation is
practical or morally acceptable.
Federalism is an effective tool by which cultures can live together. It is a
flexible solution: Canadian federalism is not the same as that 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 valid solution for human societies, a
solution that we must preserve for ourselves and for our children.
Check against delivery.
|
