In Honour of the Presidents of the Council for Canadian Unity: Some Reflections on the Concept of Nation

Notes for an address
by the Honourable Stéphane Dion,
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Keynote address to the
Council for Canadian Unity

Montreal, Quebec

April 6, 2001

Check against delivery

          Yes, as the video we have just watched showed so well, the Council for Canadian Unity (CCU), under the leadership of its presidents, has played an essential role. And it has always done so in our country's image: by making our diversity a strength. The CCU breaks down the language barrier between Francophones and Anglophones, it brings together Canadians of different cultures and from different regions of the country, from the West to the East, not to mention the North. And in so doing, it is becoming synonymous with exploring new ideas and with principles for action. It is also becoming an important source of information, especially with the more recent addition of the Centre for Research and Information on Canada (CRIC).

          In that connection, I would be remiss if I neglected to highlight the contribution of my colleague, Senator Joan Fraser, during her tenure as chair of the CRIC. After all, it is not only men who have contributed to the CCU!

          But the Council for Canadian Unity also plays another role, which I would like to emphasize. It is our only politically ecumenical forum. It is the only place that brings all of us together, from all political parties, working at the federal or provincial level, focussed on our commitment to our country, Canada. It is the one place above all others where, if we have the political will, we can think of ourselves as allies. The CCU and its successive presidents have spared no effort to preserve that alliance, to remind us that our country must always come before our parties.

          The partisan battle for power is always so intense, so filled with confrontation, so unfair and difficult sometimes, that the accumulation of disagreements, and even of mistrust and rancour, can make us forget that we are all committed Canadians. The CCU is there to remind us of that continually.

          There is nothing unusual in our having different views on the respective roles of the federal or provincial governments, or on which sphere of activity should be the purview of the public sector rather than market forces. There can be no democracy without differences of opinion among forces of the left, the right and the centre. There can be no democracy, let alone a democratic federation, without lively debates on the desirable degree of centralization or decentralization. The CCU is there to remind us that such debates are normal and healthy. Elsewhere in the democratic world, they are not transformed into arguments in favour of secession. There is no reason for this to happen in Canada.

          As an ecumenical assembly of Canadian men and women of all origins, from all regions, from all parties, Anglophones and Francophones, the Council for Canadian Unity is both the voice of conviction and the voice of moderation. It reminds us that the key to making our country stronger lies in ongoing dialogue and mutual respect, both among ourselves, committed Canadians, and also with those of our fellow citizens who do not believe in Canada. The CCU helps us not to see these fellow citizens as our enemies. If we have an adversary, it is an ideology, separatism. Those who support that ideology are fellow citizens who are to be treated with respect. Respect includes straight talk. We will not reconcile them to Canada by humouring them in their myths about Canada.

          So, straight talk with separatists, and straight talk among ourselves as well. I will continue by trying to give you a tangible illustration of the value of the CCU as a forum for reflection where it is possible to talk in complete frankness and with complete confidence. I will try to make this demonstration by addressing a debate currently making the rounds, the debate on the Quebec nation.

          The new Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bernard Landry, asserts that the crux of the Canada-Quebec question lies in the fact that Quebecers form a nation, that nations aspire to govern themselves, and that Quebec therefore must become independent.

          Let's run through that. Do Quebecers form a nation? In sociological terms, in the French sense of the word, admittedly, but in legal terms, in the English sense, it is Canada that constitutes a nation, that is, an independent state with its own seat at the United Nations.

          But in sociological terms, I would say that a nation exists as soon as human beings consider that they form one. They feel that they share common historical, cultural, ethnic, linguistic or religious traits and on this basis see themselves as a nation. It is undeniable that a large number of Quebecers consider themselves to be a nation and are one from that moment on.

          When Mr. Landry maintains that Quebec, since it is a "nation," must be the political equivalent of "nations" such as Canada, the United States or France, he is playing on words: he is sliding from the "French sociological" meaning (a community aware of its identity) to the "English legal" meaning (an independent state). In fact, the vast majority of nations in the sociological sense have a political status that is much narrower in scope than that enjoyed by our Canadian provinces. That includes the Catalans and the Scots, nations that our Quebec separatist leaders nevertheless point to as models.

          When we talk of a nation in the sociological sense, it is often difficult precisely to delineate its contours because the national sentiment stems from a process of self-identification which is ultimately rather subjective. Moreover, it would be intolerable if that self-identification were to degenerate into an attempt at annexation or appropriation of others. It is Fernand Dumont, the well-known sociologist with pro-independence allegiances, who has written that one cannot encompass into the Quebec nation, "with some sort of magic vocabulary," [translation] Quebec residents who do not recognize themselves in this nation (Raisons communes, 1995, p. 63). Now, while there are not many Quebec residents who do not recognize themselves as Quebecers, there are very many who do not want to be part of the Quebec nation if that means that they are not Canadian.

          Because that is what Mr. Landry is claiming: if we are part of the Quebec nation, we cannot be part of the Canadian nation. It is impossible to belong to two or more nations at the same time, he alleges. He is even saying that the Aboriginal peoples of Quebec are not part of the Quebec nation because they form their own nations.

          This ignores the world in which we live, where plural identities constitute a strength more than ever before. You know better than anyone, at the CCU, how much identities must be accumulated, never subtracted. For the majority of human beings, national attachments are intermingled.

          Compounding this false idea of Mr. Landry's that people can belong to only one nation is another, even more serious error, which is that each nation must form a country. This would make the planet explode. There are over three thousand human groups that define themselves as nations in the world, whereas there are fewer than two hundred states in the United Nations. The vast majority of countries are made up of several nations. In France, do the Alsatians or the Bretons form nations? In Canada, do the Acadians form a nation? Why not? Even within Quebec, just how many nations are there? Should they not form just as many independent countries, according to Mr. Landry's own logic?

          Very well then, the separatist spokespersons respond, if you do not deny the existence of the Quebec nation, why not recognize it in the Canadian Constitution? There would then have to be agreement on the number of nations to recognize in the Constitution. With the very special exception of Aboriginal peoples, the Constitution only establishes the rights of citizens and the powers of the public authorities, and otherwise lets all citizens define themselves as they see fit without imposing anything on anyone. It does not even recognize the Canadian nation.

          You are trivializing the Quebec identity, the separatist leaders accuse. To which I respond that we are not trivializing anything whatsoever. We are simply refusing to commit the error of believing that everything that is important has to be put into the Constitution.

          Many important things are not in the Constitution. The most important of values, love, is not constitutionally recognized, to take the example used by Jean-Pierre Derriennic (Nationalisme et démocratie, 1995, p. 134). It is not because our Constitution is mute on this point that love does not exist! Everyone will agree that it would not exist to any greater extent if it were mentioned in the Constitution. Even legal texts on marriage do not talk about love. That does not prevent anyone from seeing marriage as the union of two beings who love each other. I know that this argument will cause some smiles, but I nevertheless believe it is fundamental: we put into a constitution not everything that is important, but everything to which we want to attach legal consequences.

          So, the question, from the viewpoint of constitutional law, is not whether Quebecers have their own identity, to which they are attached in addition to their Canadian identity. Of course the Quebec identity is alive and well, and its existence, no more than the existence of love, does not depend on constitutional recognition. No, the question is which rights would need to be attached to an eventual constitutional recognition of that Quebec identity.

          Incidentally, I much prefer the expression "society" to that of "nation." If the objective is really to be as inclusive as possible, the word "society" is more appropriate. The etymology of the word "nation" refers to "birth," and thus retains a connotation linked to origins, even to race. The nation can be civic, but that is not guaranteed. The number of Quebecers who feel included is expanded when Quebec is defined as a society rather than a nation.

          But the question remains: what legal consequences are to be attached to a constitutional recognition of this unique or distinct Quebec society?

          It cannot be a question of giving Quebecers more rights than other Canadians. Democratic states usually do not go very far into the hierarchisation of the rights of their citizens according to whether some belong to "nations" or "societies."

          Nor can it be a question of decreeing in advance that Quebec's specificity necessitates the transfer of additional powers to the Government of Quebec, or new arrangements, such as that on which our civil law is based, without specifying which powers or which arrangements those are. Even with the constitutional recognition of Quebec's specificity, it would be necessary to continue, as we do today, to assess each proposal for change on its own merits, in light of the interests of citizens.

          But if the objective is to make that constitutional recognition an interpretive clause, as provided for in the Meech and Charlottetown accords, it must be borne in mind that this is what judges generally do in any event. The late Chief Justice Dickson, former Chief Justice Lamer and the current Chief Justice, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, have all said that the Supreme Court of Canada takes Quebec's specificity into account when interpreting the Constitution on issues that affect Quebec. To recognize this explicitly in the Constitution would be desirable, but not absolutely necessary.

          In short, with or without constitutional change, Quebecers can live very well with their national attachments. Above all, they can do so without having to choose between Quebec and Canada. It is terribly false to believe that one can belong to only one nation at a time and that each nation must be independent. Mr. Landry's over-enthusiasm for the concept of nation is misplaced. What he says about it in no way changes the fact that it is better to be both Quebecer and Canadian than to be a Quebecer without Canada.

          These are some reflections I wanted to share with you, well aware that there is no better venue than the Council for Canadian Unity to discuss frankly and openly everything that touches on the unity of our country. And that is due in large part to all of the presidents we are honouring today.

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=pressroom&Sub=Speeches&Doc=20010406_e.htm