|
"Unity in diversity, the Canadian way"
Notes for an address by
the
Honourable Stéphane Dion
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
to the South Asia Council
of the
Canadian Asian Studies Association
Montreal, Quebec
June 10, 1999
South Asia: eight countries.
Afghanistan: two official languages (Pashto and Dari) and three major ethnic
groups (Pashtuns, 38%; Tajiks, 25%; Hazaras, 19%).
Bangladesh: 83% Muslim, 16% Hindu.
Bhutan: 59% Bhote, 20% Ngalops, 25% Nepalese.
India: 25 states, 7 territories, three major ethnic groups, six main
religions, 18 official languages.
Maldives: Indians, Sinhalese, Arabs.
Nepal: one official language, Nepali, but some dozen other languages are also
used.
Pakistan: Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans, Baluchis.
Sri Lanka: Sinhalese, 74%; Tamils, 18%.
I am not surprised that federalism
and multiculturalism, as means to achieve the peaceful cohabitation of different
populations within a single state, is of great interest to South Asia
specialists such as yourselves.
The cohabitation of different
populations within a single country may well be the main issue of the next
century, not only in South Asia but elsewhere in the world as well. A 1997
Carnegie Corporation report states that since the end of the Cold War, the
number of conflicts within states has greatly exceeded the number of conflicts
between states. In addition, a study published by the United States Institute of
Peace Press has identified 233 ethnic or religious minorities that are calling
for improvements to their legal and political rights, many of which are in South
Asia.
According to Professor Daniel Elazar,
President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, there are some 3,000 human
groups in the world who are conscious of a collective identity. And yet, there
are not even 200 states in the UN. To each people its own state, a slogan
reiterated once again by Lucien Bouchard on June 5 ("[sovereignty] responds
to a need of almost all peoples on earth") [Translation], is an impractical
idea that would fragment the planet. As former United Nations Secretary-General
Boutros Boutros-Ghali has stated: "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 ever more
difficult to achieve."
In other words, we need to invent
Canadas throughout the world. They will be different from ours, to be sure, but
they will pursue the same ideal: mutual assistance of different populations
within a single state, which see their living together as the development of a
more complete citizenship, closer to universal values. As Indira Gandhi once
said, Canada is the proof that "diversity not only enriches but can be a
strength." Our country, Canada, is largely seen throughout the world as a
model of openness and tolerance, and is admired for its capacity to unite
different populations.
It is easy to imagine the world's
reaction if Canada were to break up. It would be said that this defunct
federation had died from an overdose of decentralization and tolerance -- in
short, from an overdose of democracy. Don't be as tolerant, as decentralized, as
open as Canada has been, or else your minority or your minorities will turn
against you, jeopardize the unity of your country, and perhaps destroy it:
that's what would be said.
The very reason I entered active
politics is that I want to hear the opposite. I want to hear people say,
throughout the world: We can be confident in our minorities, and allow them to
flourish in their own way, because in that way they will strengthen our country,
just as Quebec strengthens Canada.
The Canadian unity debate is
universal in scope. If a country as fortunate as Canada fails to maintain its
unity, Canadians will have sent a very bad message to the rest of the world at
the beginning of the new millennium.
I am going to describe the Canadian method for cohabitation of different
populations, as I see it, and will leave you to determine which elements of it
can be transposed to the extremely varied contexts of South Asia, and which
cannot. I will also explain why, in my opinion, the solution to our unity
problem lies in further developing this Canadian method, rather than abandoning
it.
1. The Canadian way to
encourage cultures to live together
The Canadian system is based first
and foremost on individual rights. Only flesh-and-blood people exist in a
tangible way, only they are capable of feelings, freedom, happiness. That being
said, individuals maintain or develop affinities on the basis of sharing common
traits. Some of those affinities relate to language, culture and religion, and
are expressed as collective identities.
The Canadian ideal consists of seeing these differences between groups of
citizens not as a problem, but instead as a strength, which, rather than
separating citizens, allows them to pursue together the plural quest for what is
just and good. The promotion of collective identities or affinities in Canada
does not mean the negation of individual rights. It is meant to help Canadian
citizens to develop and flourish. 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 genuine love for their country.
In this sense, Canadian multiculturalism is not a series of closed ghettos, and
it must not become one. It expresses the conviction that human beings are better
served by cultural exchanges than by cultural assimilation or separation. Canada
was the first country in the world to adopt a multiculturalism policy and
continues to play a leading role in this regard, for which it received high
praise from UNESCO in 1996.
The quest for a better autonomy for
Aboriginal peoples must not mean that the individuals that make up those peoples
have fewer rights than other Canadian citizens. They too are protected by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But this status of autonomy must enable
these Aboriginal populations to deal with the specificity they have inherited
from their history and the political status that was imposed on them.
The notion of founding peoples would
be unacceptable if it meant that Canadians of British or French origin ought to
have more rights than other Canadians. But it draws its meaning from the fact
that Canada has the good fortune to have two official languages that are also
international languages, windows on the world. With regard to the more fragile
situation of French, Canada has inherited from its history the good fortune, the
privilege and the duty to promote French and French-language cultures in Quebec,
in Canada as a whole and throughout the world, and to make this heritage
accessible to Canadians of all origins.
The notion of distinct society, or a
society with a unique character, cannot give Quebecers more rights or privileges
than other Canadians. Possible constitutional recognition of this notion could
not give the Government of Quebec more powers than the other provincial
governments, without it being known in advance what those powers would be. This
notion means that the Canadian federation must be flexible enough to address the
varied needs of its federated components, including the unique character of
Quebec society.
That unique character is easy to
identify: Quebec is the only province where Francophones and Anglophones alike
can be described both as a majority and as a minority. Francophones are the
majority in Quebec, but are a minority in Canada and a very small minority in
North America. Quebec Anglophones are certainly part of the majority in North
America and Canada, but in Quebec, where they live and work, they are a
minority. The pursuit of the harmonious cohabitation between Francophones and
Anglophones in Quebec is taking place in the unique context of Quebec society.
It is incumbent on governments and the courts to take that unique character into
account. And that is just what the Supreme Court of Canada does, according to
one of its former chief justices, the late Brian Dickson. For all practical
purposes, potential constitutional recognition of Quebec's specificity would
merely formalize existing practice.
The Canadian federation, and in
particular, the division of constitutional powers between the federal and
provincial governments, are not organized on the basis of collective identities,
defined in terms of peoples or nations. Rather, it is individual rights that
still and always are paramount: the objective, as set out in the Constitution,
is that the federation ensure that all citizens, to the greatest possible
extent, have access to public services of comparable and optimal quality. But
that quality is achieved in different ways, depending on the different contexts
of each province. It is important that each province have the means to pursue
that quest for quality, and this is the basis for the extensive redistribution
mechanisms to benefit the less wealthy provinces.
The provinces have equality of
status. There is only one status for provinces in Canada, not two or three --
either you are a province, or you are not. In law, they all have the same
constitutional responsibilities. In practice, however, some provinces,
particularly the province of Quebec, have used the potential afforded them by
Canada's Constitution much more than other provinces have. A number of federal
government policies encourage this flexibility. For example, the recent job
training agreements allowed the provinces to choose either extensive autonomy or
co-management of programs with the federal government. The Government of
Newfoundland chose co-management, while the Government of Quebec chose autonomy.
The flexibility of Canadian federalism thus allows for a de facto asymmetry that
is quite pronounced in comparison with what is generally found in other
federations.
We can see that the provinces'
equality of status is not to be confused with uniformity. It is perfectly in
keeping with the plural quest for high-quality public service.
This is the Canadian way of seeking
unity in diversity. It is based on the primacy of individual rights. But it does
not establish these rights in the abstract; it takes into account the diverse
realities of which individuals are a part. Our multiculturalism, our
bilingualism and our federalism all give tangible expression to the way
individual rights mesh with collective realities.
2. The Canadian method and
the challenge of separatism
There are those who say that the
existence of a separatist movement in Quebec is proof that Canadian federalism
doesn't work. I say that's inaccurate: Canada is undeniably a country that works
in comparison with others, in the sense that it provides its citizens with one
of the best qualities of life in the world. That quality of life stems in large
part from a spirit of tolerance, openness and mutual trust between different
populations that is hard to find elsewhere. Canada can and must be improved, but
we shall do so even more effectively once we have resolutely decided to stay
together.
To improve Canada, we need to build
on its diversity and to see it as a strength. But we cannot build on its
diversity while denying its most fundamental dimension: the inalienable
difference which makes each individual, each person, a unique human being. To
renounce the primacy of individual rights, to organize the country primarily
along the lines of collective representations of identity as defined by public
authorities, which they would refer to as peoples, nations or what have you, to
submerge individuals into these collective entities, is not building unity in
diversity. It is proposing an artificial uniformity within each of those
collective constructions.
There are those who claim that
Quebecers, Quebec Francophones, at least, look uniformly to their provincial
government, whereas Canadians in the other provinces look to the federal
government. And so the Canadian federation should be reorganized in accordance
with those supposed preferences: centralize Canada outside Quebec and hand over
to the Quebec government a large number of the responsibilities currently
assumed by the federal government.
But such a simplistic vision of
things is not borne out by opinion polls. Quebecers are not uniformly lined up
behind their provincial government any more than other Canadians are the
centralizers they are made out to be. For example, an EKOS poll in November 1997
indicated that better cooperation between governments is the preferred solution
of 51% of Quebecers and 60% of Canadians outside Quebec, compared with
decentralization to the provinces, favoured by 38% of Quebecers and 22% of
Canadians outside Quebec, and centralization toward the federal government, the
choice of 8% of Quebecers and 18% of Canadians outside Quebec.
Canadians throughout the country
prefer better cooperation between the two orders of government rather than
radical centralization or decentralization. Decentralization has more support in
Quebec than it does elsewhere, but even in Quebec, the most popular choice is
that of better cooperation between governments.
Another false solution, akin to the
previous one, is what I call internal separatism. This consists of giving the
separatists part of the powers they are calling for, in the hope that they will
get to the point where they lose their appetite for separation. For Canada,
which is already a very decentralized federation, this would mean gradually
handing over almost all public responsibilities to the Government of Quebec. By
doing so, it would be hoped that the vast majority of Quebecers would be
satisfied with this extensive autonomy, and that the hardline separatists would
be marginalised.
In my opinion, it would be a mistake
to pursue such a strategy. Every new concession made to appease the separatists
would lead Quebecers to withdraw ever further into their territory, to define
themselves by an exclusive "us", to see other Canadians increasingly
only from afar, and to reject the Canadian government and common Canadian
institutions as a threat to their nation, a foreign body. The division of powers
between the two orders of government is not a bargaining chip that can be used
to allay separatism.
Internal separatism is a strategy
doomed to failure. It cannot make a country work in unity. What the separatists
want is not piecemeal powers, yesterday job training, tomorrow an enhanced role
at UNESCO. What they hope for is for Quebec to be a separate country. They want
to cease being Canadian. Lucien Bouchard said so yet again as recently as June
5: "A people must conduct itself as a people and manage its own affairs
within its own state." (Translation)
The separatist leaders' ideology of
exclusive nationalism consists of presenting our Canadian dimension as something
foreign to ourselves as Francophone Quebecers. Something foreign and
unnecessary, and worse: something harmful and threatening. That's why the
separatist leaders don't want to ask a clear question on secession: they know
that their exclusive nationalism is rejected by a clear majority of Quebecers.
The main obstacle to their project is that the vast majority of Quebecers feel
that they are Canadians too. This is confirmed by all the opinion polls:
something like 80% of Quebecers feel that they have a Canadian identity in
addition to their Quebec identity. Quebec nationalism is generally open to the
Canadian dimension and the Quebec dimension alike.
Quebecers in general see themselves
as a people, but they also see themselves as belonging to the Canadian people,
and they don't have a problem acknowledging the existence of more than one
people in Quebec. Many remain attached to the French-Canadian people. They
appreciate these different identities and make them their own, and are wary of
exclusive conceptions of the nation.
Quebecers clearly feel that the
reason we have a federation is not so that we can withdraw farther away from one
another. It is so we can pursue common objectives together, through the
diversity of our experiences and institutions and the plurality of our
identities.
Conclusion
Georges-Étienne Cartier believed
that Canada should be a political nationality, where different populations can
work together in all confidence for the common good, without having to fear the
melting pot of uniformity. That was an innovative idea at the time. Assimilation
was actively promoted throughout the Western world in the 19th century by those
with a liberal spirit, for example through one-size-fits-all mandatory
schooling. They saw it as a precondition for ensuring equality of opportunity
among individuals.
Assimilation has existed and still
exists in Canada, but on the whole it has failed. Francophones and Anglophones
had to learn first to tolerate one another, then to better respect one another,
and then to extend one another a helping hand. This difficult learning process,
including its darker pages, made them better disposed to welcome new citizens
from every corner of the globe.
Canada is still a political
nationality. 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 all its citizens to flourish in freedom, taking
into account the context in which they are evolving, and respecting their
collective loyalties, including the unique character of Quebec society.
I am not saying that Canada has
managed to achieve this ideal. I am saying that the pursuit of this ideal holds
the key to strengthening our unity. I also believe that this ideal is universal
in scope, and that the pursuit of this ideal may help countries that, in
contexts more difficult than our own, in South Asia and elsewhere, need to
achieve harmony among their populations, and to seek, in some way, their own
Canada.
Check against delivery
|
