"Symbolic Politics"

Windsor, Ontario

April 28, 1996

Canadian unity is an issue with many dimensions. But by far the dimension that has received the most attention is the emotional debate about two words. Our country may die because we are not able to clarify what we have in mind when we are for or against these two words.

Two weeks ago, in St-Hyacinthe, our friends in the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada did some good work and came up with a set of proposals, but they included a proposal that consisted in changing those two words. It wasn't exactly a resounding success, and everything else was scrapped. Nothing was retained from all the work they accomplished. I was in Edmonton the other day and I said that I would talk about the Canadian federation, how it works and how we can make it work even better, but the only thing that was noticed was that I didn't talk about those two words.

My subject today will not be so much these two words, but why the debate has focussed so much on these two words. The answer is that our country is sick of symbolic politics. And Canada may die from this disease. I'm very happy to speak about this subject with you today, with Liberal friends, who in 1992 stated their public support for the recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness at their biannual convention.

It is good to be talking to Liberal friends here in one "foyer principal" of Canadian Liberalism -- Windsor, Ontario.

When you think of Windsor, you think of the great Liberals who have shaped this city and our country - like Paul Martin Sr., Eugene Whelan, and, of course, Herb Gray.

And it is good to see that their spirit is being carried on by the great Liberals of today, like Paul Martin Jr., Susan Whelan, and, of course, Herb Gray. We are fortunate that all of them will continue serving Canada for many years to come, especially our friend Herb Gray, whom we need so much as Liberals and Canadians.

Our country is sick from symbolic politics, and as I have said, it may die from this disease. In symbolic politics, unlike ordinary politics, everything becomes a matter of black and white. Positions are turned into sacred ideals on which no compromise is possible.

Every shade of meaning, every difference of opinion becomes an insurmountable obstacle, an insoluble contradiction of principles. These are the consequences of the symbolic politics that has plagued Canada for so many years.

Our propensity to interpret different points of view as irreconcilable oppositions of principle may be the worst threat for the unity of our country.

One thing I dislike about politics is the way that damaging rhetoric is casually used. I think we all as politicians, as journalists or public figures, or simply as citizens, should make an effort to be more careful with our speech.

What we see too often in politics is a trivialization of ugly terms like "racism" and "victimization". If you listened only to speeches in the House of Commons or media talking heads, you might think Canada has differences of race, language, and regionalism that are completely unresolvable, when in fact we have one of the best records of human rights and cultural cooperation in the world.

Let us consider some recent examples. In the House of Commons, some Reform members of Parliament have begun referring to Native land claims settlements, Quebec's language laws, or a census question asking people to specify their ethnic origin, as "racist". Now, you may disagree with some of these things. Personally, I strongly objected to the Office de la langue française when it attempted to restrict the distribution of kosher foods for the Passover holiday because it was not labelled in French. That was insensitive and hurtful. But it is irresponsible to use loaded terms like "racism" to describe these problems.

The language of victimization is also dangerous. We are all tired of the Bloc Québécois constantly pointing to every real or perceived slight towards Quebec or French-Canadians as a "humiliation". I get angry when I hear Lucien Bouchard say that Jean Chrétien, who has represented Quebecers for thirty years in the House of Commons, wants to see Quebecers on their knees. This is also dangerous rhetoric which appeals to the darker side of nationalism.

But the rhetoric of the anti-nationalists is sometimes just as dangerous. Some very prominent commentators have said that any kind of nationalism is inherently ethnic, chauvinistic, and racist. Historically, however, we have seen examples of nationalism being used for good as well as evil. Nationalism may be a force used to build social solidarity to achieve common projects - those projects can be good or bad, and it is these projects that we should judge, not the idea of nationalism.

Canada has always been a country of diverse national identities. D'Arcy McGee and Georges-Etienne Carter said that there were four cultural nations within Canada at their time - the French, the English, the Irish and the Scots - but that, collectively, Canadians formed one political nation. There are different forms of nationalism today in Canada, and they are expressed in different common projects. They are not inherently racist simply because they appeal to different national solidarities.

Today's Quebec nationalism is a modern outgrowth of the older French-Canadian nationalism of Georges-Etienne Cartier and Henri Bourassa. It has been used to promote different political projects over the past thirty years, some of which I support, some of which I have fought against. Let us judge nationalism - whether Quebec nationalism or any other nationalism - by its effects. It is a trivialization and banalization of dangerous language to simply say that all nationalism is racism.

One of the most destructive elements of the debate over Meech Lake was the suggestion that Quebec, if recognized as a distinct society, would somehow use this to suppress the rights of women, minorities or any individual in the province. The economist Pierre Fortin best captured the intense feelings of rejection that Quebecers felt at that time. Fortin wrote: "In rejecting Meech, the rest of Canada signalled to Quebec that it didn't believe Quebec was capable of reconciling the defence and promotion of its identity with the imperatives of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

In other words, many Quebecers concluded: why should we try to share the same country with people who do not have any confidence in us and see us as less liberal and democratic than they are?

This sense of rejection, because of the dangerous use of symbolic politics, is a major reason why support for independence in Quebec rose from about 30% in 1987 to almost 70% in 1990 - right after Meech Lake.

So I would ask all of us in the next few months to be careful in our assessments and our rhetoric, to avoid the emotionally laden language of symbolic politics that could destroy this country. We cannot allow Canada to die of symbolic politics.

Check against delivery.

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=pressroom&Sub=Speeches&Doc=19960428_e.htm