"Canadian Diversity and the Recognition of Quebec"

Notes for an address to Members of the
Ontario and Quebec Canadian Jewish Congress,
Hellenic Canadian Congress and
National Congress of Italian Canadians

Toronto, Ontario

November 26, 1996

It was very important for me to accept your invitation to talk to you, here at Holy Blossom Temple, about the main reason I feel Canada must remain united. I am especially pleased that representatives of Quebec's Jewish, Greek and Italian communities are here with us in Toronto to share in that discussion.

The main reason that I believe that Canada must stay together has more to do with what is universal about Canada than with what is unique and specific to our country. It is certainly true that those things which symbolize our uniqueness, such as our flag, our national anthem, and the majestic beauty of our vast territory, fill our hearts with pride. And yet, the real reason that Canada is a jewel for humanity is that our country is perhaps the most humane country in the world, where the universal values of freedom, tolerance, and respect for differences are perhaps most respected. At the risk of contradicting my Prime Minister, I'll admit that I don't know whether Canada is ‘the best country in the world'. But I think it would be difficult to find another country where each human being has a better opportunity to be considered as a human being, whatever his or her origin or religion, than here in Canada.

Some have said that Canada is an artificial country. If by that they mean that Canada has overcome so-called natural distinctions of race or ethnicity, to achieve what is truly universal among human beings, we should take this as a great compliment.

It is especially fitting that I talk about the search for universal values at an event organized by the Jewish, Greek, and Italian communities, for in human history it was in Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome that many of these ideals were expressed. Not only have your cultures contributed much in ancient times to the building of human civilization, but your particular communities have played a major part in the building of Canada, and of the two great cities of Montreal and Toronto. There are 970,000 people of Italian, Jewish, and Greek descent in Toronto and Montreal combined. Neither Montreal nor Toronto -- nor Canada itself -- would be imaginable without your communities. You, who find your roots in three of the great ancient civilizations, contribute to our pluralistic search to make Canada a model that can serve as a universal ideal.

"I should regard it as a great misfortune for mankind if liberty were to exist all over the world under the same features," wrote Alexis de Tocqueville. The Canadian ideal is a way to avoid this misfortune. Canadians know that the quest for what is right, just and good must be pluralistic. They know that it is by drawing on the best part of each culture, each individual, each regional or historical experience, that we come closer to what is best in civilization. Canadians know that equality must not be confused with uniformity.

In that sense, the Canadian ideal is the ideal of all humanity. If Canada were to break up, we would send a terrible signal to the other countries of the world. Most countries face severe challenges in trying to adapt to cultural diversity in an era of globalization when diverse populations mingle more than ever. Canada's break-up would not encourage the cultural majorities in these countries to show tolerance, openness and trust towards their minorities. On the contrary, many of them would say: "Don't try to be tolerant, democratic and decentralized, as the Canadian federation was, because you'll be signing your own death warrant." The secession of Quebec would be especially tragic, since Canada's spirit of tolerance, which we all value, emerged precisely from the need for the French and English to find ways to live together and get along. It has not been easy, and many injustices were committed in our history. But the early history of Confederation must be judged in comparison with the 19th century attitudes elsewhere. At that time, many countries, including France and the United States, had policies of cultural assimilation, notably through a "one size fits all" system of mandatory education.

From the very beginning, Canadian history has been marked by a greater openness to difference, a greater spirit of tolerance than most other countries. That initial experience between the British and French in early Canada led them in turn to give a better reception to their new fellow citizens from every continent. Today, we project our spirit of openness beyond our borders by acting as a generous country, a citizen of the world, as we have seen in the recent Canadian response to the crisis in Zaire.

We must not only preserve this Canadian spirit of tolerance, but we must continually improve on it. We must remember that intolerance is always present and has been a part of our history. Recently, the unfortunate affair of Quebec's Lieutenant-Governor, who admitted to youthful ideological errors during the last war, has reminded the people of my province of a past we would rather forget. Those Canadians in other provinces who may have been tempted to lecture Quebecers should read Abella and Troper's book, None is Too Many, to see how widespread racism was in all of Canada at that time. Let us not forget that it was not until the 1960s that our immigration policy was purged of racial criteria.

The reason I am so opposed to Quebec's secession from the rest of Canada, and that I want to fight against it with every means democracy gives me, is certainly not because I believe that Quebecers are less tolerant than other Canadians. No, it is because I am convinced that secession would put tolerance at risk. There is a great contrast between the tolerance of Quebec society and the intolerance of the secessionist option. Understanding this contrast may hold the key to our unity debate.

First, let me talk about the tolerance of Quebec society. In my work as an academic, I have been struck by the extent to which Quebecers cherish the same universal values as other Canadians. If you ask Quebecers their opinion on interracial marriages, for example, you will see the same degree of openness you see elsewhere in Canada, an openness that is generally greater everywhere in Canada than in the United States or Europe. If you observe the day-to-day life of Montreal, you will see that, in spite of geographic distance, that great multicultural city shares the same culture of tolerance as Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver, in contrast with most American cities.

You know that I've spent my whole life immersed in the Quebec academic community, so you won't be surprised to learn that most of my Quebec friends are sovereignists, or at least have been tempted by the sovereignist option. I know that those men and women share the same universal values that have brought us here today. It is because my sovereignist friends share those same values that we need to dialogue with them and explain that secession would jeopardize the kind of open society that they prize.

The reason I oppose secession is that its very dynamic would destroy, for a long time, the spirit of tolerance in Quebec society and would damage that spirit in the rest of Canada. Secession is the type of divisive issue that can plunge the most tolerant of populations into intolerance. This can be seen even now, when secession is merely a possibility, rather than a reality. Since the referendum, which made secession seem a more realistic possibility than it had appeared before, we have seen a worsening of the language debate in Quebec which has shaken the consensus that had prevailed in recent years. Secession is the only issue that is causing an unhealthy split between Francophone and non-Francophone Quebecers. We cannot let this mistrust take over the entire political arena. And yet, that is exactly what would happen in the event of an attempted secession, especially if it were to occur in an atmosphere of confusion about the rules and in violation of the rule of law.

We must consider why the secessionist option divides Quebec Francophones, whereas other Quebecers massively reject it. The fact that non-Francophone Quebecers do not want secession is not because they reject Quebec society. Non-Francophone Quebecers consider themselves to be full participants in Quebec society. But they do not want secession because they do not want to give Canada up.

Indeed, why should they give it up? Some Francophone Quebecers believe there is an advantage in doing so: the advantage of becoming a majority. When they say: ‘We want to be a majority,' it is clear that ‘we' does not include non-Francophone Quebecers. Jacques Parizeau's famous speech about ‘money and the ethnic vote' is the explicit proof of that: "If you want to stop talking about Quebec Francophones, we'll speak for ourselves: 60% of us voted YES, so that's that!" After such a speech, Jacques Parizeau no longer had a political future in the Quebec and Canada of today. And yet, that's the state of mind in which this man would have launched his attempt at secession if the YES side had won.

Wherever secessionist movements arise in the world, their proponents are members of a specific ethnic, linguistic or religious group, which wants to change existing borders to create a new state in which that group forms the majority. The minorities living in that same region almost never support these secessionist ambitions, unless the existing state is oppressive and authoritarian. This is obviously not the case in Canada. Secession cannot be justified in Canada except by the particular, identity-driven considerations of a specific group. That is why Quebec secession is a project which favours exclusion, and would breed intolerance and division among communities that are now living in harmony.

I'll say it again: the risks do not stem from a feeling of intolerance that is allegedly greater among Quebec Francophones than among other Canadians. Rather, it is secession itself and the break-up of Canada which would breed discord, disturbing suspicions, and feelings of rejection.

Secession would weaken the strong ties of solidarity that unite all Quebecers above and beyond our linguistic or ethnic differences, as well as those equally strong ties that unite Quebecers with our fellow citizens in the Atlantic provinces, Ontario, and Western and Northern Canada. Our universal values impel us on the contrary to strengthen those ties of solidarity. I want to help my fellow citizens, be they Aboriginal people, Newfoundlanders or Ontarians, to express their own way of being Canadian, and to build a better future for their children. I want to help the Jewish, Italian, Greek and other cultural communities throughout Canada. And I want other Canadians to help me to strengthen Quebec society so that the blend of our different cultures makes us better and stronger. But to do that, we have to stay together. We have to reach out to one another, rather than listen to the voices of division and animosity.

Because secession is the problem, not Quebec society, and because that society is such a remarkable element of the Canadian reality, we should recognize Quebec for what it is: a fundamental characteristic of Canada, which we all want to support, because it enriches all Canadians, something which we do not want to lose.

The fact is that, while non-Francophone Quebecers massively reject secession, a great many of them support recognition of Quebec within the Constitution of Canada. They consider themselves to be a part of Quebec society, and wish to remain in Canada, and see no contradiction between these two aspirations. Although they are excluded by the secessionist option, which is driven by goals they do not share, they feel strongly that Quebec society is theirs, because they are helping to strengthen it, along with their Francophone fellow citizens. In its very distinctiveness, Quebec society belongs as much to them as it does to Francophones. After all, non-Francophone Quebecers are the only minority in North America which lives with a Francophone majority. They want to help their Francophone fellow citizens to flourish in this English-speaking continent while ensuring their own rights are respected as well.

If Ontario were surrounded by a Francophone North America, all Ontarians, Anglophones and Francophones, would be in a distinctive situation that would have to be recognized as such by other Canadians.

Canada has already recognized the French language and Quebec's distinctiveness in many ways. The Official Languages Act and constitutional protections for the French language and Quebec's civil code are good examples of this. These were controversial at the time they were introduced, but are now accepted as part of Canada's identity. A further recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness would take the form of an interpretive clause in the Constitution, such as the existing section 27 of the Charter, which recognizes the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Today, after fifteen years under the Charter, nobody would say that this clause has endangered the rights of a single Canadian. Why should recognition of Quebec be any different?

Recognizing Quebec as a fundamental characteristic of Canada would not have the effect of giving Quebecers more powers, privileges or money than other Canadians. Nor would it violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rather, it would formalize a convention that already exists, under which our judges are expected to take account of the specific context of Quebec in an English-speaking North America when they rule on issues that affect the province, as former Supreme Court Chief Justice Brian Dickson has recently explained.

The purpose of constitutional recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness is thus not to give Quebec more powers. I have made that very clear, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Those in Quebec or other provinces who want more powers for their provincial government should submit a list of those powers and explain, on a case-by-case basis, how that transfer of responsibilities would improve public service. That is the only acceptable way to proceed. No federation in the world would agree to put in the Constitution a sort of grab bag that could modify federal-provincial responsibilities without having any idea in advance of how that might occur.

I do not see any valid reason for not recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness in the Canadian Constitution. Some people tell me, "Stéphane, don't make a big thing about it, it's been tried in the past, people don't want it." That's a defeatist attitude which I feel insults Canadians' intelligence. Fatigue and resignation are never good advisors in private life, and they are even less so in public life, when the fate of a country is at stake. We should remember all the major reforms of the past, such as votes for women, compulsory education, and progressive taxation, which were resisted for a long time before gaining public acceptance.

I am also told that the word ‘distinct' is not the most suitable, because it has in English a sense of superiority that is not found in French. I happen to like the expression in French, "Société Distincte," perhaps because its initials are the same as mine! More seriously, I like the idea of recognizing Quebec as a society, because the word "society" by definition includes all of its members. But the form of the wording chosen is less important than the content of the message that Canadians in all parts of the country would be sending to Quebecers. They would be saying: ‘We admire the way that you Quebecers, Francophones and non-Francophones alike, are dealing with your specific situation in North America, and we want to show our solidarity with you in your effort to express this Canadian reality, which enriches us all.' If Canadians made this gesture clearly, without any haggling, without seeing it as an opportunity to bargain for something else in return; if they did so because it is right and good in and of itself, they would be taking a giant step toward national reconciliation and unity.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his government have recognized Quebec as a distinct society by a resolution in the House. They have made a commitment to work to convince Canadians to entrench the recognition of Quebec in the fundamental law of our country. Some premiers have also taken steps in that direction, as has the leader of the federalist forces in Quebec, Mr. Daniel Johnson. It is clear, however, that constitutional recognition of Quebec must first be popular among Canadians. This reconciliation must be made in people's hearts, not just on a piece of paper signed by politicians.

The representatives of the Greek, Italian and Jewish communities who are here today want to convince their fellow citizens to recognize Quebec's difference. That doesn't mean they agree with everything that is happening in Quebec -- far from it. But they do know that Quebec society, to which they belong, expresses in its own way the Canadian ideal. They are asking all Canadians in the other provinces and territories to say loud and clear that they do not want Quebec to be absorbed into a monolithic, English-speaking Canada, but that they want to be in solidarity with Quebec, in the same way that Quebec, by its very nature, helps them to define themselves as Canadians facing a powerful American culture to the south.

We are very much against secession precisely because we are very much for a vibrant Quebec society. Through secession, Quebec society would be renouncing not only Canada, but also the best part of itself. And we are also very much for constitutional recognition of Quebec precisely because we are very much for a strong Canada. This issue is greater than all of us. In the next century, cultural assimilation and cultural separation will be more impractical and morally unacceptable as solutions than ever before. The only solution is the cohabitation of cultures, and its name is Canada. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express that conviction to my fellow citizens, at this defining moment in our history.

Check against delivery.

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=pressroom&Sub=Speeches&Doc=19961126_e.htm