The Charter, Federalism, and the Constitution, La Charte - Conseil ...
The Charter, Federalism, and the Constitution, La Charte - Conseil ...
The Charter, Federalism, and the Constitution, La Charte - Conseil ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Editorial Board / Comité de rédaction<br />
Editor-in-Chief Rédacteur en chef<br />
Kenneth McRoberts, York University, Canada<br />
Associate Editors Rédacteurs adjoints<br />
Alan Cairns, University of British Columbia, Canada<br />
Mary Jean Green, Dartmouth College, U.S.A.<br />
Lynette Hunter, University of Leeds, United Kingdom<br />
Danielle Juteau, Université de Montréal, Canada<br />
Managing Editor Secrétaire de rédaction<br />
Guy Leclair, ICCS/CIEC, Ottawa, Canada<br />
Advisory Board / Comité consultatif<br />
Aless<strong>and</strong>ro Anastasi, Universita di Messina, Italy<br />
Michael Burgess, University of Keele, United Kingdom<br />
Paul Claval, Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV), France<br />
Dona Davis, University of South Dakota, U.S.A.<br />
Peter H. Easingwood, University of Dundee, United Kingdom<br />
Ziran He, Guangzhou Institute of Foreign <strong>La</strong>nguages, China<br />
Helena G. Komkova, Institute of <strong>the</strong> USA <strong>and</strong> Canada, USSR<br />
Shirin L. Kudchedkar, SNDT Women’s University, India<br />
Karl Lenz, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany<br />
Gregory Mahler, University of Mississippi, U.S.A.<br />
James P. McCormick, California State University, U.S.A.<br />
William Metcalfe, University of Vermont, U.S.A.<br />
Ch<strong>and</strong>ra Mohan, University of Delhi, India<br />
Elaine F. Nardocchio, McMaster University, Canada<br />
Satoru Osanai, Chuo University, Japan<br />
Manuel Parés I Maicas, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Espagne<br />
Réjean Pelletier, Université <strong>La</strong>val, Canada<br />
Gemma Persico, Universita di Catania, Italy<br />
Richard E. Sherwin, Bar Ilan University, Israel<br />
William J. Smyth, St. Patrick’s College, Irel<strong>and</strong><br />
Sverker Sörlin, Umea University, Sweden<br />
Oleg Soroko-Tsupa, Moscow State University, USSR<br />
Michèle <strong>The</strong>rrien, Institut des langues et civilisations orientales, France<br />
Gaëtan Tremblay, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada<br />
Hillig J.T. van’t L<strong>and</strong>, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Pays-Bas<br />
Mel Watkins, University of Toronto, Canada<br />
Gillian Whitlock, Griffith University, Australia<br />
Donez Xiques, Brooklyn College, U.S.A.<br />
ii
International Journal of Canadian Studies<br />
Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8 Spring-Fall/7-8 printemps-automne 1993<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>Federalism</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
<strong>La</strong> <strong>Charte</strong>, le fédéralisme et la <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
Table of Contents/Table des matières<br />
Alan C. Cairns<br />
Introduction/Présentation ..........................5<br />
José Woehrling<br />
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des rapports entre le Québec<br />
et le Canada anglais .............................9<br />
Peter H. Russell<br />
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada: <strong>The</strong><br />
Politics of Frustration ...........................41<br />
David M. Thomas<br />
Turning a Blind Eye: <strong>Constitution</strong>al Abeyances <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
Experience .................................63<br />
Richard <strong>La</strong>Rue et Jocelyn Létourneau<br />
De l’unité et de l’identité au Canada. Essai sur l’éclatement<br />
d’un État ..................................81<br />
Richard Sigurdson<br />
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada: A Critique of <strong>the</strong><br />
Critics ...................................95<br />
Janet Hiebert<br />
Rights <strong>and</strong> Public Debate: <strong>The</strong> Limitations of a ‘Rights must be Paramount’<br />
Perspective ................................117<br />
Linda Cardinal<br />
Les mouvements sociaux et la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits et<br />
libertés ..................................137<br />
Andrew D. Heard<br />
Quebec Courts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights ...........153
François Rocher et Daniel Salée<br />
Démocratie et réforme constitutionnelle : discours et pratique. .....167<br />
Stephen McBride<br />
Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong> as an Instrument of Competitiveness: Liberal Political<br />
Economy <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong> .................187<br />
Lilianne E. Krosenbrink-Gelissen<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Women’s Rights:<br />
Conflicts <strong>and</strong> Dilemmas .........................207<br />
Radha Jhappan<br />
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights: <strong>the</strong> Evolution of<br />
Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse from 1982 to <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord ..........................225<br />
Jill Vickers<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing <strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
......................................261<br />
Max Nemni<br />
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la construction de l’idée de sécession<br />
au Québec. ................................285<br />
Review Essays/Essais critiques<br />
Michael Oliver<br />
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong> Biculturalism on<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Thought <strong>and</strong> Practice in Canada .............315<br />
David R. Cameron<br />
Not Spicer <strong>and</strong> Not <strong>the</strong> B & B: Reflections of an Insider on <strong>the</strong> Workings of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity ............333<br />
Allan Tupper<br />
English-Canadian Scholars <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord ........347
Introduction<br />
To an anthropologist from distant<br />
l<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> Canadian obsession with<br />
<strong>the</strong> constitution might be seen as a<br />
cargo cult—<strong>the</strong> millenarian belief<br />
that <strong>the</strong> perfect constitution will be<br />
delivered up by some magical<br />
process, after which Canadian lions<br />
<strong>and</strong> lambs will cavort peaceably<br />
toge<strong>the</strong>r. Undoubtedly, Canadians<br />
have devoted inordinate time to<br />
constitutional introspection in <strong>the</strong><br />
last three decades. Canadian<br />
scholars have accompanied, <strong>and</strong><br />
sometimes tried to lead, <strong>the</strong> public<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> political elites in <strong>the</strong> search<br />
for a new constitutional<br />
equilibrium.<br />
Both <strong>the</strong> authors <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> subjects of<br />
<strong>the</strong> articles that follow confirm <strong>the</strong><br />
contrast between yesterday’s <strong>and</strong><br />
today’s constitutional world.<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al analysis is no longer<br />
dominated by lawyers; federalism<br />
does not enjoy an unchallenged<br />
pride of place as <strong>the</strong> subject matter<br />
par excellence of <strong>the</strong> written<br />
constitution; <strong>and</strong> French- English (or<br />
Quebec-Rest of Canada) cleavages do<br />
not exhaust <strong>the</strong> contemporary<br />
national question in Canada.<br />
As this volume reveals, <strong>the</strong> opening<br />
up of <strong>the</strong> constitution means,<br />
among o<strong>the</strong>r things, diversifying <strong>the</strong><br />
disciplinary backgrounds of those<br />
who study it to include political<br />
scientists, philosophers <strong>and</strong><br />
sociologists. This is <strong>the</strong> academic<br />
version of <strong>the</strong> recent democratizing<br />
of Canadian constitutional<br />
discourse. <strong>The</strong> catalyst for this<br />
democratization, which induced<br />
resort to a referendum judgement<br />
on <strong>the</strong> 1992 Charlottetown Accord,<br />
is <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s<br />
powerful symbolism, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
concomitant relative displacement<br />
of federalism as a constitutional<br />
organizing principle, are illustrated<br />
by <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s central place in at<br />
Présentation<br />
À les voir tant obsédés par leur<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>, un anthropologue de<br />
l’autre bout du monde doit bien<br />
penser que les Canadiens pratiquent<br />
un culte millénariste et attendent<br />
d’un processus magique la parfaite<br />
constitution qui permettra aux lions<br />
et aux agneaux canadiens de<br />
gambader côte-à-côte. C’est vrai<br />
qu’ils ont consacré au cours des<br />
trente dernières années un temps<br />
fou à l’introspection<br />
constitutionnelle. Les universitaires<br />
et les spécialistes canadiens ont<br />
souvent accompagné et tenté de<br />
guider le public et les élites<br />
politiques dans leur quête d’un<br />
nouvel équilibre constitutionnel.<br />
Autant les auteurs que les sujets des<br />
articles ici publiés font voir le<br />
contraste entre l’univers<br />
constitutionnel d’hier et celui<br />
d’aujourd’hui. <strong>La</strong> recherche<br />
constitutionnelle n’est plus<br />
l’apanage des juristes; le<br />
fédéralisme n’occupe plus la place<br />
d’honneur en tant qu’objet par<br />
excellence de la constitution écrite;<br />
et les divisions franco-anglaises<br />
(Québec-Reste du Canada)<br />
n’épuisent pas la question nationale<br />
dans le Canada contemporain.<br />
Comme ce numéro le montre bien,<br />
le réexamen de la <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
suppose désormais que les<br />
intervenants oeuvrent dans<br />
plusieurs disciplines différentes,<br />
dont la science politique, la<br />
philosophie et la sociologie. C’est<br />
la variante universitaire de la<br />
récente démocratisation du débat<br />
constitutionnel canadien. Le<br />
catalyste de cette démocratisation,<br />
qui a entraîné la tenue d’un<br />
référendum sur l’Accord de<br />
Charlottetown de 1992, c’est la<br />
<strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits et<br />
libertés. Le symbolisme puissant de<br />
la <strong>Charte</strong> et le déclin relatif et
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
least a third of <strong>the</strong> following<br />
articles.<br />
<strong>The</strong> emergence of Aboriginal<br />
peoples to constitutional<br />
prominence, aspects of which are<br />
lucidly explored in two of <strong>the</strong><br />
essays, is no less revealing of <strong>the</strong><br />
kind of constitutional people(s)<br />
Canadians have become. <strong>The</strong>ir<br />
evolution from constitutional<br />
objects to constitutional participants<br />
transforms what used to be <strong>the</strong> two<br />
nations debate (French-English)<br />
into a more complex debate about<br />
<strong>the</strong> appropriate institutional <strong>and</strong><br />
constitutional response to a<br />
multinational ra<strong>the</strong>r than binational<br />
Canada.<br />
Canada’s recent constitutional<br />
pilgrimage has also undermined <strong>the</strong><br />
former virtual monopoly of men<br />
over constitutional discourse <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> agenda of constitutional change.<br />
Yesterday’s constitution, although<br />
this was only dimly seen by our<br />
predecessors, was male. <strong>The</strong><br />
unsettled relation of women to <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional order, in particular to<br />
future Aboriginal self-governments,<br />
is a major constitutional issue<br />
explored in <strong>the</strong> articles that follow.<br />
<strong>The</strong> intrepid cover-to-cover reader<br />
of this volume will perhaps emerge<br />
shaken, but he or she will also have<br />
gained an appreciation of <strong>the</strong><br />
complexities of Canada’s<br />
constitutional existence, <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>refore of why it is so difficult to<br />
transform aspirations for change<br />
into realized constitutional reform.<br />
It may be, as <strong>the</strong> Thomas article<br />
suggests, that Canadians would<br />
have been wiser to have asked less<br />
of <strong>the</strong> constitution, <strong>and</strong> to have<br />
understood that it is wisdom, not<br />
lack of courage, to leave some<br />
constitutional stones unturned.<br />
Unfortunately, however, <strong>the</strong><br />
momentum behind <strong>the</strong> pressure for<br />
constitutional reform is unlikely to<br />
disappear when where we are is an<br />
unacceptable resting place to many<br />
6<br />
concomitant du fédéralisme en tant<br />
que principe organisateur de la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> sont clairement<br />
illustrés par la place centrale<br />
qu’occupe la <strong>Charte</strong> dans au moins<br />
le tiers des articles du présent<br />
numéro.<br />
L’importance nouvelle des peuples<br />
autochtones dans les discussions<br />
constitutionnelles — deux essais<br />
sont consacrés à certains aspects de<br />
cette question — n’est pas moins<br />
révélatrice de l’évolution des<br />
Canadiens, tous « peuples »<br />
confondus, en matière<br />
constitutionnelle. De sujets de<br />
discussion constitutionnelle qu’ils<br />
étaient, ils sont devenus des<br />
participants essentiels, transformant<br />
ainsi un débat qui se déroulait entre<br />
deux nations (Français — Anglais)<br />
en une discussion complexe sur la<br />
solution institutionnelle et<br />
constitutionnelle qui conviendrait le<br />
mieux à l’heure d’un Canada<br />
multinational et non plus binational.<br />
Le tout dernier pèlerinage canadien<br />
en terre constitutionnelle a aussi<br />
mis à mal le quasi-monopole des<br />
hommes sur le discours<br />
constitutionnel et sur les priorités à<br />
l’ordre du jour. <strong>La</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
d’hier, même si nos prédécesseurs<br />
n’en étaient guère conscients, était<br />
mâle. L’importante question,<br />
toujours pendante, du rapport des<br />
femmes à l’ordre constitutionnel,<br />
surtout en ce qui a trait aux futurs<br />
gouvernements autochtones, est<br />
également analysée dans les articles<br />
qui suivent.<br />
Le valeureux lecteur qui lira ce<br />
numéro de la première à la dernière<br />
ligne en sortira peut-être ébranlé. Il<br />
ou elle en aura néanmoins mieux<br />
saisi la complexité de la réalité<br />
constitutionnelle et compris<br />
pourquoi il est si difficile de<br />
traduire les aspirations au<br />
changement en solutions<br />
constitutionnelles concrètes. Peutêtre,<br />
comme l’article de Thomas le
of <strong>the</strong> key actors, especially<br />
Quebecois <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal<br />
nationalists, <strong>and</strong> Alberta Senate<br />
reformers.<br />
We offer this volume to our readers<br />
on <strong>the</strong> premise that no matter how<br />
difficult a constitutional<br />
rapprochement will be, an<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing of <strong>the</strong> dialectic<br />
between social forces <strong>and</strong><br />
constitutional arrangements is a<br />
necessary if not sufficient<br />
prerequisite for successful<br />
constitutional change.<br />
Alan C. Cairns<br />
University of British Columbia<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>Federalism</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
<strong>La</strong> <strong>Charte</strong>, le fédéralisme et la <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
conseille, les Canadiens auraient-ils<br />
été plus sages en exigeant moins de<br />
leur <strong>Constitution</strong>, car en pareille<br />
matière, la prudence — et non pas<br />
la pusillanimité — veut qu’on évite<br />
de remuer ciel et terre.<br />
Malheureusement, les pressions en<br />
faveur d’une révision<br />
constitutionnelle ne se relâcheront<br />
vraisemblablement pas, compte<br />
tenu de la situation inacceptable de<br />
nombre d’acteurs clés,<br />
particulièrement les Québécois, les<br />
nationalistes autochtones et les<br />
Albertains qui préconisent une<br />
réforme du Sénat.<br />
Bien que fort conscients des<br />
difficultés d’un rapprochement<br />
constitutionnel, nous avons préparé<br />
ce numéro dans le dessein d’aider<br />
nos lectrices et lecteurs à saisir la<br />
dialectique qui régit les rapports<br />
entre les forces sociales et les<br />
aménagements constitutionnels.<br />
Nous n’ambitionnions pas de<br />
résoudre le problème; seulement de<br />
l’éclairer.<br />
Alan C. Cairns<br />
University of British Columbia<br />
7
José Woehrling<br />
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais *<br />
Résumé<br />
Si, en 1867, le Canada a été créé sous la forme d’une fédération plutôt que<br />
d’un état unitaire, c’était essentiellement pour faciliter la coexistence de ses<br />
deux « peuples fondateurs » : les francophones — qui ne sont majoritaires<br />
qu’au Québec — et les anglophones — qui forment la majorité dans les neuf<br />
autres provinces. Or, en 1982, malgré l’opposition du Québec et<br />
contrairement à ses intérêts, le Canada anglais a apporté d’importantes<br />
modifications à la <strong>Constitution</strong> du pays. Par la suite, le Québec a vainement<br />
tenté d’obtenir des garanties qui protégeraient son caractère distinct en tant<br />
que seule collectivité francophone sur un continent anglophone. L’échec de<br />
cette tentative de réconciliation a entraîné la plus grave crise constitutionnelle<br />
que le Canada ait connu depuis sa création. L’auteur examine l’évolution des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais, de 1867 à aujourd’hui, et<br />
analyse les perspectives d’avenir.<br />
Abstract<br />
If Canada was created in 1867 as a federation ra<strong>the</strong>r than a unitary state, it<br />
was largely to facilitate <strong>the</strong> coexistence of <strong>the</strong> two “founding peoples”:<br />
Francophones, a majority only in <strong>the</strong> province of Quebec, <strong>and</strong> Anglophones,<br />
<strong>the</strong> majority in <strong>the</strong> rest of Canada. However, in 1982, some important changes<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong> were imposed by English Canada against <strong>the</strong><br />
wishes of Quebec <strong>and</strong> contrary to Quebec interests. Subsequently, Quebec has<br />
tried in vain to obtain certain guarantees to protect its distinct character as <strong>the</strong><br />
sole Francophone society on an English-speaking continent. <strong>The</strong> failure of this<br />
attempt at reconciliation has brought about <strong>the</strong> most serious constitutional<br />
crisis that Canada has known since its creation. <strong>The</strong> author examines <strong>the</strong><br />
evolution of relations between Quebec <strong>and</strong> English-speaking Canada from<br />
1867 to our day, <strong>and</strong> concludes by analyzing possible future scenarios.<br />
Le Canada et le Québec traversent actuellement l’une des pires crises<br />
constitutionnelles de leur histoire. Le réaménagement des accords politiques<br />
qui servent de cadre à leurs rapports est devenu inévitable. Dans l’introduction,<br />
nous ferons un rapide survol de l’évolution des relations entre le Québec et le<br />
Canada anglais depuis 1867, année de la Confédération, jusqu’au<br />
« rapatriement » de la <strong>Constitution</strong> en 1982, contre la volonté du Québec. Nous<br />
examinerons ensuite les circonstances et les raisons de l’échec des deux<br />
tentatives majeures qui ont été faites au cours de la dernière décennie pour<br />
réformer la <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne. Ce double échec a mis en lumière<br />
l’ampleur des divergences qui existent entre les aspirations du Québec et celles<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
du Canada anglais. Nous concluerons par une analyse des différentes options<br />
qui s’offrent pour l’avenir des relations entre le Québec et le Canada anglais.<br />
Au moment de la création du Canada, en 1867, les francophones étaient déjà<br />
minoritaires partout en Amérique du Nord, sauf au Québec. Aussi<br />
favorisaient-ils l’adoption d’un système fédéral afin de s’assurer, au moins, le<br />
contrôle démocratique d’un des États membres de la fédération et de disposer<br />
d’instruments politiques susceptibles de protéger leur triple particularisme,<br />
tenant à la langue française, à la religion catholique et au droit civil. Par la<br />
suite, pendant près d’un siècle, le Québec réussit à préserver son autonomie et<br />
sa spécificité sur un mode principalement défensif dans la mesure où la société<br />
québécoise restait repliée sur elle-même et fondée sur des valeurs<br />
traditionnelles. Les Canadiens français de cette époque cultivaient une<br />
idéologie de la survivance et se cantonnaient dans un univers fermé aux<br />
influences extérieures. Sur le plan constitutionnel, l’objectif des<br />
gouvernements québécois était moins d’étendre leurs pouvoirs que de les<br />
protéger contre tout empiètement. Cette attitude changera radicalement durant<br />
la période qui va de 1955 à 1965 pendant laquelle se déroule la « Révolution<br />
tranquille ». <strong>La</strong> société québécoise connaît alors une série de transformations<br />
qui lui font rattraper en quelques années le retard qu’elle avait accumulé par<br />
rapport aux autres sociétés occidentales.<br />
À cette époque, le Québec se dote d’un appareil étatique moderne par la<br />
création de nouveaux ministères et le développement de sa fonction publique.<br />
Dans le domaine économique, les nouvelles élites québécoises cherchent à<br />
conquérir une partie du pouvoir de décision traditionnellement détenu par les<br />
anglophones. Pour y parvenir, elles utilisent les ressources et les instruments<br />
de l’État québécois pour favoriser l’émergence d’une nouvelle classe<br />
d’entrepreneurs et de capitalistes francophones. <strong>La</strong> fin des années soixante<br />
marque également la mise en oeuvre d’une véritable politique linguistique<br />
québécoise. On pouvait alors constater deux phénomènes sociaux fort<br />
inquiétants : d’une part, la désaffection des immigrants à l’égard de l’école<br />
française et, d’autre part, l’infériorité du français par rapport à l’anglais dans la<br />
vie économique, et cela, même au Québec. À partir de là, les objectifs de la<br />
politique linguistique québécoise vont s’imposer en quelque sorte d’euxmêmes<br />
: le premier sera d’amener les immigrants à fréquenter l’école française<br />
et le deuxième visera à rehausser le prestige de la langue française et son utilité<br />
dans la vie économique. Ces deux objectifs n’ont jamais été remis en cause; au<br />
contraire, ils ont été poursuivis de façon systématique par tous les<br />
gouvernements qui se sont succédés au Québec depuis 1970 : le gouvernement<br />
libéral de M. Robert Bourassa, qui a fait adopter en 1974 la Loi sur la langue<br />
officielle (ou « loi 22 »); puis le gouvernement du Parti québécois, dirigé par<br />
René Lévesque, qui a fait voter en 1977 la <strong>Charte</strong> de la langue française (ou<br />
« loi 101 »). De la loi 22 à la loi 101, les buts sont restés les mêmes, seuls les<br />
moyens et les modalités ont changé : la loi 101 est plus sévère, plus coercitive<br />
et plus « englobante » que la loi 22. En 1985, lorsqu’il est revenu au pouvoir,<br />
le gouvernement libéral de M. Bourassa a conservé la loi 101 sans y apporter<br />
de modifications très importantes. <strong>La</strong> loi régit le statut des langues dans trois<br />
secteurs principaux : les institutions publiques, la vie économique et<br />
l’éducation. Dans ces trois domaines, elle a pour objectif de rehausser le statut<br />
du français. Pour y parvenir, elle limite en partie les droits ou privilèges<br />
traditionnels des anglophones.<br />
En matière constitutionnelle, la « Révolution tranquille » a fait passer le<br />
Québec de la simple défense des pouvoirs acquis à la revendication de<br />
10
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
pouvoirs nouveaux et nombreux. Après 1960, les gouvernements québécois<br />
successifs vont tous réclamer une modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong> pour obtenir<br />
les compétences supplémentaires estimées nécessaires à l’épanouissement de<br />
la société québécoise. Ils dem<strong>and</strong>eront donc soit une décentralisation générale<br />
des pouvoirs valable pour toutes les provinces, soit la création d’un « statut<br />
particulier » pour le Québec par lequel celui-ci se verrait reconnaître davantage<br />
de compétences que les autres provinces.<br />
Au fur et à mesure que le temps passe, les revendications constitutionnelles du<br />
Québec vont d’ailleurs se durcir. Le gouvernement libéral de Jean Lesage, au<br />
pouvoir entre 1960 et 1966, était resté foncièrement fédéraliste et avait adopté<br />
le slogan « Maîtres chez nous ». Par contre, avec le gouvernement de l’Union<br />
nationale de Daniel Johnson, qui s’était fait élire en 1966, le mot d’ordre était<br />
devenu « Égalité ou indépendance ». En 1967, René Lévesque quittait le Parti<br />
libéral pour créer le Parti québécois, dont le programme consiste à réaliser<br />
l’indépendance du Québec. Neuf ans plus tard, en 1976, le Parti québécois<br />
prenait le pouvoir et s’engageait à tenir un référendum sur un projet de<br />
souveraineté politique du Québec, combiné avec une association économique<br />
et monétaire avec le Canada.<br />
Le référendum eut lieu en mai 1980, le « non » obtenant 59,56 p. 100 des voix<br />
et le « oui », 40,44 p. 100. Cependant, après avoir rejeté le projet souverainiste<br />
du Parti québécois, la population devait le maintenir au pouvoir lors des<br />
élections qui suivirent, en 1981. Très rapidement, le gouvernement fédéral de<br />
M. Trudeau allait mettre à profit la situation de faiblesse dans laquelle le<br />
référendum avait placé le Québec. En 1982, avec l’appui des neuf provinces<br />
anglaises, il faisait adopter une nouvelle loi constitutionnelle, sans l’accord du<br />
gouvernement québécois et contre sa volonté clairement exprimée. Ainsi, pour<br />
la première fois depuis 1867, la <strong>Constitution</strong> était modifiée sans l’accord du<br />
Québec. En outre, la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 contient un processus<br />
d’amendement permettant d’eventuelles modifications sans le consentement<br />
du Québec. Par ailleurs, les dem<strong>and</strong>es formulées par le Québec depuis 1960<br />
pour obtenir de nouveaux pouvoirs restaient insatisfaites et, pis encore,<br />
certaines dispositions de la nouvelle <strong>Constitution</strong> avaient pour effet de<br />
diminuer les pouvoirs traditionnels du Québec dans le domaine crucial de la<br />
protection de la langue française.<br />
L’échec de l’Accord du lac Meech en 1987-1990<br />
Dans un jugement du 6 décembre 1982, la Cour suprême du Canada avait<br />
déclaré à l’unanimité qu’il n’existait aucune règle de droit ou convention<br />
constitutionnelle permettant au Québec de s’objecter aux modifications de la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>. Par conséquent, l’opposition du gouvernement du Parti<br />
québécois à l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 n’a pas empêché<br />
celle-ci de s’appliquer pleinement au Québec dès son entrée en vigueur le 17<br />
avril 1982. Cependant, le fait que la deuxième plus gr<strong>and</strong>e province du Canada<br />
— et la seule qui soit majoritairement francophone — n’adhère pas à la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> pose évidemment un problème politique grave et fait planer une<br />
menace sur l’unité du Canada.<br />
En 1985, le Parti québécois cédait le pouvoir au Parti libéral de M. Robert<br />
Bourassa, qui s’est toujours présenté comme résolument fédéraliste. Le<br />
nouveau gouvernement allait formuler cinq conditions pour donner l’accord<br />
du Québec à la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 :<br />
1) la reconnaissance du Québec comme société distincte;<br />
11
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
2) la garantie d’un rôle accru des autorités provinciales en matière<br />
d’immigration;<br />
3) la participation du gouvernement québécois à la nomination de<br />
trois des neuf juges de la Cour suprême du Canada;<br />
4) la limitation du « pouvoir de dépenser » du gouvernement fédéral<br />
(c’est-à-dire le pouvoir de ce gouvernement d’intervenir<br />
financièrement dans les domaines relevant de la compétence<br />
exclusive des provinces);<br />
5) la reconnaissance d’un droit de veto au Québec sur la réforme des<br />
institutions fédérales et la création de nouvelles provinces.<br />
Il faut souligner que ces cinq dem<strong>and</strong>es représentaient une réduction<br />
considérable des exigences traditionnelles du Québec. En effet, le<br />
gouvernement Bourassa ne revendiquait de nouveaux pouvoir que dans le seul<br />
secteur de l’immigration alors que tous ses prédécesseurs, depuis la<br />
« Révolution tranquille », exigeaient d’obtenir l’exclusivité des compétences<br />
dans de très nombreux domaines, notamment la politique familiale et celle de<br />
la main-d’oeuvre, les télécommunications, l’aménagement régional et ainsi de<br />
suite. En fait, mis à part l’immigration, les quatre autres dem<strong>and</strong>es du Québec<br />
correspondaient à des mécanismes de protection des pouvoirs provinciaux<br />
existants bien plus qu’à un quelconque élargissement de ceux-ci.<br />
En juin 1987, après deux ans de négociation, les dix provinces et le<br />
gouvernement fédéral concluaient un accord (appelé l’« Accord du lac<br />
Meech ») en vertu duquel on convenait de modifier la <strong>Constitution</strong> pour<br />
donner satisfaction au Québec. Il faut cependant souligner que sur les cinq<br />
modifications réclamées par le Québec, quatre avaient été étendues à toutes les<br />
provinces. Par conséquent, la seule modification propre au Québec était la<br />
reconnaissance du caractère distinct de la société québécoise. Par ailleurs, une<br />
modification non réclamée par le Québec avait été ajoutée à l’Accord du lac<br />
Meech, à la dem<strong>and</strong>e des provinces de l’Ouest, concernant le processus de<br />
nomination des sénateurs.<br />
Pour entrer en vigueur conformément à la procédure de modification adoptée<br />
en 1982, l’Accord du lac Meech devait être ratifié dans un délai maximal de<br />
trois ans par les deux Chambres du Parlement fédéral et chacune des dix<br />
assemblées législatives provinciales. Ce délai devait être fatal, car les critiques<br />
contre l’Accord n’ont cessé de se multiplier au Canada anglais et l’appui dont<br />
il y bénéficiait au départ a constamment diminué. Certaines de ces critiques<br />
étaient parfaitement fondées alors que d’autres, au contraire, semblent avoir<br />
découlé d’une mauvaise compréhension de l’Accord, ou même d’une<br />
intention délibérée de le faire échouer. Rappelons rapidement les griefs qui ont<br />
été faits au Canada anglais à chacun des six éléments de l’Accord pour tenter<br />
d’en évaluer le bien-fondé et mesurer l’importance des divergences qui<br />
existent entre le Québec et le reste du pays.<br />
<strong>La</strong> réforme du Sénat<br />
<strong>La</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> du Canada prévoit que les sénateurs sont nommés par le<br />
gouvernement fédéral. En pratique, depuis 1867, tous les gouvernements ont<br />
procédé à des nominations partisanes, presque toujours destinées à servir de<br />
récompense politique. Cette pratique a fait en sorte que les sénateurs, qui ne<br />
sont pas élus par la population des provinces, ne peuvent pas davantage<br />
prétendre parler au nom des gouvernements provinciaux. Par conséquent, les<br />
sénateurs ne sont investis d’aucune légitimité politique et, pour cette raison, le<br />
Sénat devrait normalement s’abstenir d’exercer les pouvoirs que la<br />
12
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> lui reconnaît en matière législative et qui sont, à peu de choses<br />
près, les mêmes que ceux de la Chambre des communes1. L’Accord du lac<br />
Meech prévoyait que les sénateurs représentant une province devraient être<br />
choisis par le gouvernement fédéral d’après une liste de c<strong>and</strong>idats établie par le<br />
gouvernement de la province en question. <strong>La</strong> réforme consistait donc à<br />
substituer au pouvoir discrétionnaire et incontrôlé du gouvernement fédéral un<br />
pouvoir de nomination conjoint qui obligerait les deux gouvernements à<br />
s’entendre sur le choix des c<strong>and</strong>idats.<br />
En fait, ce n’est pas tellement ce changement qui a provoqué la critique, car les<br />
adversaires de l’Accord du lac Meech se sont surtout attaqués aux dispositions<br />
concernant la procédure de modification constitutionnelle nécessaire pour<br />
réformer les autres caractéristiques du Sénat. En effet, avec l’Accord du lac<br />
Meech, une telle réforme deviendrait pratiquement impossible parce qu’on<br />
exigeait pour sa réalisation l’accord unanime des dix provinces. Or, depuis une<br />
dizaine d’années, les provinces de l’Ouest avaient fait de la réforme du Sénat<br />
leur cheval de bataille dans le dessein d’acquérir une plus gr<strong>and</strong>e influence sur<br />
le processus décisionnel fédéral. Faiblement peuplées, ces provinces<br />
n’envoient à la Chambre des communes qu’un trop petit nombre de députés<br />
pour pouvoir y exercer une influence comparable à celle des deux gr<strong>and</strong>es<br />
provinces du « Canada central », le Québec et l’Ontario. Les provinces de<br />
l’Ouest privilégient par conséquent la formule dite « Triple E », soit un Sénat<br />
« élu, égal et efficace » où chaque province serait représentée par le même<br />
nombre de sénateurs élus au suffrage universel direct2. En outre, ce nouveau<br />
Sénat exercerait les mêmes pouvoirs que la Chambre des communes. Ce<br />
modèle s’inspire du Sénat australien.<br />
Cependant, l’égalité de représentation de toutes les provinces au Sénat<br />
entraînerait des conséquences difficiles à accepter sur le plan démocratique.<br />
En effet, les six plus petites provinces (les quatre provinces de l’Atlantique, le<br />
Manitoba et la Saskatchewan) détiendraient ensemble 60 p. 100 des voix alors<br />
qu’elles ne représentent que 17 p. 100 de la population canadienne. Une telle<br />
formule serait au surplus inacceptable pour les Québecois à qui elle ne<br />
laisserait que le dixième des sièges. Pour tenter de convaincre le Québec<br />
d’accepter une diminution de sa proportion des sièges, certains suggèrent<br />
d’exiger, dans le cadre d’un Sénat réformé, une double majorité (celle de<br />
l’ensemble des sénateurs et des sénateurs francophones) pour l’adoption des<br />
projets de loi relatifs à la langue et à la culture françaises. Un tel système ne<br />
protégerait cependant pas le Québec pour ce qui est des questions autres que<br />
linguistiques ou culturelles. Au surplus, les sénateurs francophones ne seraient<br />
pas tous québécois, puisque certains d’entre eux devraient être désignés pour<br />
représenter les minorités francophones hors du Québec. Or, les intérêts des<br />
Québécois et des minorités francophones du Canada anglais sont loin d’être<br />
identiques par rapport aux interventions fédérales en matières culturelle et<br />
linguistique.<br />
De façon plus générale, l’élection des sénateurs au suffrage direct ne paraît pas<br />
être une bonne solution dans le cadre canadien, car pareille modalité<br />
entraînerait de graves inconvénients dans le contexte d’un système<br />
parlementaire de type britannique, caractérisé par le principe de la<br />
responsabilité ministérielle, le bipartisme et la discipline de parti. Du point de<br />
vue de la composition partisane, un Sénat élu au suffrage universel risque en<br />
effet d’être trop semblable à la Chambre des communes, ce qui lui enlèverait<br />
sa raison d’être ou, au contraire, trop différent, ce qui pourrait amener les deux<br />
Chambres à s’affronter et à se neutraliser mutuellement. En effet, dans la<br />
13
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
mesure où elles seraient pareillement élues au suffrage direct et posséderaient<br />
par voie de conséquence une même légitimité démocratique, aucune des deux<br />
Chambres ne se sentirait tenue de céder à l’autre. En outre, conformément aux<br />
règles de la discipline de parti, la loyauté des sénateurs irait aux partis auxquels<br />
ils doivent leur élection et dont dépend leur réélection plutôt qu’à la province<br />
ou à la région qu’ils représentent. Comme le montre l’exemple du Sénat<br />
australien, dont le fonctionnement est généralement dominé par la politique<br />
partisane, l’élection des sénateurs a pour conséquence d’affaiblir<br />
considérablement leur capacité d’agir en tant que représentants des États<br />
membres de la fédération. Par ailleurs, il serait illogique de donner au Sénat<br />
une forte légitimité démocratique sans lui reconnaître également des pouvoirs<br />
importants. Plus précisément, dans la mesure où le Sénat et la Chambre des<br />
communes sont l’un et l’autre élus, il est difficile de ne pas reconnaître à celuici<br />
les mêmes pouvoirs qu’à celle-là. Or, un système parlementaire exige que la<br />
Chambre basse ait des pouvoirs supérieurs à ceux de la Chambre haute, car<br />
c’est de la première qu’émane le gouvernement et, par conséquent, c’est<br />
devant elle seule qu’il est responsable.<br />
Il existe donc une incompatibilité certaine entre l’élection des sénateurs au<br />
suffrage direct, qui suppose que le Sénat ait les mêmes pouvoirs que la<br />
Chambre des communes, et la logique interne du système parlementaire, qui<br />
veut, au contraire, que la Chambre basse ait des pouvoirs supérieurs à la<br />
Chambre haute. Si, comme le réclament les tenants de la formule « Triple E »,<br />
la <strong>Constitution</strong> était modifiée pour faire élire le Sénat canadien, on se<br />
trouverait placé devant des choix difficiles. Pour maintenir l’intégrité du<br />
système parlementaire, il faudrait refuser au Sénat le pouvoir de rejeter la<br />
plupart des lois adoptées par les Communes et ne lui attribuer qu’un simple<br />
droit de veto suspensif, ce qui reviendrait à dire que les sénateurs ne<br />
représentent pas la population au même titre que les députés bien qu’ils soient<br />
élus. Mais si l’on donnait au Sénat un droit de veto absolu sur les lois<br />
présentées par le gouvernement, cela serait contraire aux principes<br />
fondamentaux du système parlementaire.<br />
Il faut également souligner qu’un Sénat doté de pouvoirs significatifs peut<br />
paradoxalement constituer un facteur de centralisation du système fédéral. En<br />
effet, l’expérience de l’Allemagne et des États-Unis tend à démontrer que les<br />
États constituants acceptent d’autant plus facilement de voir leurs<br />
compétences propres diminuer qu’ils obtiennent en contrepartie une plus<br />
gr<strong>and</strong>e participation au processus décisionnel central par le biais de la<br />
Chambre fédérale. À cet égard, il est révélateur que les provinces canadiennes<br />
qui réclament le Sénat « Triple E » soient également opposées à un<br />
affaiblissement du rôle d’Ottawa. C’est que dans la mesure où ces provinces<br />
espèrent que la réforme du Sénat leur permettra d’exercer une influence accrue<br />
au sein des institutions du pouvoir central, elles veulent que ce dernier reste<br />
fort, ou même qu’il soit renforcé. Par ailleurs, il faut voir que l’élection des<br />
sénateurs au suffrage universel risque de renforcer encore le caractère<br />
centralisateur d’une réforme du Sénat. En effet, la légitimité des autorités<br />
fédérales s’en trouverait accrue et des sénateurs fédéraux élus pourraient<br />
prétendre représenter les intérêts de la population provinciale au même titre<br />
que les politiciens provinciaux3. <strong>La</strong> procédure de nomination des juges de la Cour suprême<br />
Actuellement, les juges de la Cour suprême sont nommés de façon<br />
pratiquement discrétionnaire par le gouvernement fédéral. L’Accord du lac<br />
14
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
Meech prévoyait que celui-ci serait tenu de les nommer sur proposition des<br />
gouvernements provinciaux 4. Ne craignant pas le ridicule, certains adversaires<br />
de l’Accord du lac Meech ont prétendu que cette modification enlèverait à la<br />
Cour suprême sa neutralité en tant qu’arbitre du fédéralisme. C’est plutôt le<br />
fait que les juges soient actuellement nommés par le seul gouvernement<br />
fédéral qui enlève à la Cour toute crédibilité en tant qu’instance véritablement<br />
impartiale. On peut même penser qu’un système de nomination conjointe des<br />
juges de la Cour suprême par le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces<br />
donnerait à la Cour une légitimité fédérative, qui lui fait actuellement défaut et<br />
pourrait donc avoir pour effet paradoxal de la mettre davantage à l’abri des<br />
critiques sans véritablement modifier la portée centralisatrice de son<br />
intervention, celle-ci tenant à des facteurs économiques, sociaux et politiques<br />
bien plus profonds que les simples modalités de désignation des juges. Pour<br />
terminer, il faut souligner qu’en vertu de l’article 96 de la Loi constitutionnelle<br />
de 1867, le gouvernement fédéral nomme de façon discrétionnaire les juges<br />
des cours supérieures et des cours d’appel provinciales. Or, les membres de la<br />
Cour suprême du Canada sont désignés dans neuf cas sur dix parmi les juges de<br />
la Cour supérieure ou de la Cour d’appel. On constate donc que le fait de<br />
dresser les listes de c<strong>and</strong>idats n’aurait pas conféré aux gouvernements<br />
provinciaux une très gr<strong>and</strong>e latitude.<br />
Les ententes relatives à l’immigration<br />
Actuellement, la <strong>Constitution</strong> du Canada attribue des pouvoirs concurrents en<br />
matière d’immigration au Parlement canadien et aux législatures des<br />
provinces tout en prévoyant la prépondérance de la législation fédérale en cas<br />
d’incompatibilité5. Cette disposition permet donc au Parlement fédéral<br />
d’exercer une véritable hégémonie dans le domaine de l’immigration,<br />
puisqu’il lui suffirait de légiférer de façon incompatible avec les lois<br />
provinciales en vigueur pour rendre celles-ci inopérantes.<br />
L’Accord du lac Meech prévoyait la constitutionnalisation d’une entente sur<br />
l’immigration intervenue en 1978 entre le Québec et le gouvernement fédéral<br />
par laquelle ce dernier acceptait de laisser le Québec établir les critères de<br />
sélection de certaines catégories d’immigrants. L’entente en question n’était<br />
cependant valable que pour une période déterminée et pouvait être dénoncée<br />
moyennant un préavis. Aux termes de l’Accord du lac Meech, cependant, il<br />
était prévu qu’après approbation par le Parlement fédéral et celui du Québec,<br />
elle serait constitutionnalisée et ne pourrait plus être modifiée qu’avec<br />
l’assentiment de ces deux mêmes corps législatifs. En outre, le gouvernement<br />
fédéral s’engageait à négocier avec les autres provinces qui en feraient la<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>e des accords similaires et à les constitutionnaliser également.<br />
Les adversaires de l’Accord du lac Meech ont prétendu que les autorités<br />
fédérales avaient ainsi ab<strong>and</strong>onné aux mains des provinces leurs pouvoirs en<br />
matière d’immigration. Cette critique est largement exagérée si l’on tient<br />
compte du fait que l’Accord prévoyait également que pareille entente « n’a<br />
d’effet que dans la mesure de sa compatibilité avec les dispositions des lois du<br />
Parlement du Canada qui fixent des normes et objectifs nationaux relatifs à<br />
l’immigration et aux aubains, notamment en ce qui concerne l’établissement<br />
des catégories générales d’immigrants, les niveaux d’immigration au Canada<br />
et la détermination des catégories de personnes admissibles au Canada ». Par<br />
conséquent, les autorités fédérales se réservaient le pouvoir discrétionnaire de<br />
rendre inopérantes les dispositions les plus importantes des ententes<br />
15
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
susceptibles d’être conclues avec les provinces, même après que leur<br />
enchâssement dans la <strong>Constitution</strong>.<br />
<strong>La</strong> limitation du pouvoir fédéral de dépenser<br />
Le « pouvoir de dépenser » désigne la capacité d’un ordre de gouvernement<br />
d’affecter des ressources financières à certains objectifs. Lorsque les buts<br />
poursuivis relèvent de la compétence de l’autorité qui engage les dépenses, il<br />
n’existe aucune difficulté particulière. Par contre, le problème se pose qu<strong>and</strong><br />
les dépenses ainsi faites permettent une intervention dans les compétences de<br />
l’autre ordre de gouvernement. Comme les ressources financières fédérales<br />
sont plus importantes que celles des provinces, ce sont ces dernières qui ont à<br />
craindre l’exercice du pouvoir de dépenser du gouvernement central, plutôt<br />
que l’inverse.<br />
Dans l’exercice de son pouvoir de dépenser, le fédéral verse aux provinces des<br />
subventions qui doivent servir à des programmes précis (par opposition aux<br />
paiements de péréquation que les provinces peuvent affecter librement aux<br />
fins qu’elles déterminent). En outre, ces subventions sont souvent<br />
conditionnelles au respect de certains objectifs ou normes fixés par les<br />
autorités fédérales. Enfin, les provinces sont parfois tenues de participer<br />
financièrement au programme, qui devient alors un programme « conjoint »<br />
(ou « cofinancé »). Des vérificateurs fédéraux contrôlent la bonne marche des<br />
opérations et l’utilisation des sommes versées par Ottawa. Le fédéral a<br />
commencé à proposer de tels programmes aux provinces dès l’époque de la<br />
Première Guerre mondiale dans des domaines relevant de la compétence<br />
provinciale. Depuis lors, plus de cent programmes de ce genre ont été établis,<br />
toujours à l’initiative des autorités fédérales, certains de nature temporaire,<br />
mais la plupart avec vocation à la permanence. Il est évidemment très difficile<br />
pour les provinces de refuser d’y participer, puisque cela désavantagerait leurs<br />
ressortissants qui paient à Ottawa des impôts dont une partie sert à financer les<br />
programmes en question. Pourtant, en se pliant aux objectifs et aux normes<br />
imposés par les autorités fédérales, les provinces consentent à modifier leurs<br />
propres priorités budgétaires et à se laisser dicter la manière d’exercer les<br />
compétences que la <strong>Constitution</strong> leur attribue de façon exclusive, sans compter<br />
qu’elles risquent, au bout d’un certain temps, de voir le fédéral se retirer<br />
unilatéralement du programme ou diminuer sa participation à un moment où il<br />
n’est plus politiquement possible de le supprimer à cause des attentes et des<br />
habitudes qu’il a créées dans la population6. L’Accord du lac Meech prévoyait qu’une province qui refuserait de participer<br />
aux futurs programmes à frais partagés, créés par le gouvernement fédéral<br />
dans un domaine de compétence provinciale exclusive, recevrait une « juste »<br />
compensation, qui correspondrait, si l’on comprend bien, au montant que le<br />
fédéral aurait dépensé chez elle si elle avait accepté le programme. Les<br />
adversaires de l’Accord considéraient que cette limitation du pouvoir fédéral<br />
de dépenser menaçait la capacité d’Ottawa de créer de nouveaux programmes<br />
sociaux (par exemple, un programme national de garderies) et d’en imposer<br />
l’implantation dans toutes les provinces. Encore une fois, la crainte semble<br />
exagérée. En effet, l’Accord du lac Meech prévoyait également qu’une<br />
province qui se retirerait d’un programme à frais partagés ne recevrait une<br />
compensation financière qu’à la condition d’affecter celle-ci à « un<br />
programme ou une mesure compatible avec les objectifs nationaux ». Il est vrai<br />
que la notion d’« objectifs nationaux » était imprécise et pouvait être<br />
diversement interprétée. Il aurait donc fallu attendre que les tribunaux lui<br />
16
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
donnent une signification plus précise avant de savoir quelles contraintes le<br />
respect des « objectifs nationaux » imposait réellement aux provinces.<br />
<strong>La</strong> procédure de modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
L’Accord du lac Meech apportait certains changements à la procédure de<br />
modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong>. Il prévoyait notamment que les modifications<br />
actuellement visées par l’article 42 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 et<br />
relevant par conséquent de la procédure générale des deux tiers seraient<br />
soumises à la règle de l’unanimité énoncée à l’article 41. Ce faisant, il<br />
assujétissait notamment la réforme des institutions fédérales et la création de<br />
nouvelles provinces à l’exigence d’un accord unanime des dix provinces, alors<br />
que ces modifications ne nécessitent actuellement que l’accord du Parlement<br />
fédéral et des deux tiers des provinces (c’est-à-dire sept provinces sur dix)<br />
représentant la moitié de la population totale.<br />
Il semble que les critiques adressées à ce dernier élément de l’Accord du lac<br />
Meech étaient justifiées. L’exigence de l’unanimité aurait conféré à la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> une rigidité excessive et rendu pratiquement impossible la<br />
réforme du Sénat et l’accession des Territoires du Nord-Ouest et du Yukon au<br />
statut de province. C’est pourquoi l’opposition à ces dispositions de l’Accord<br />
fut particulièrement vive, notamment dans les territoires et dans les provinces<br />
de l’Ouest, ces dernières tenant beaucoup à une réforme du Sénat. Le sort de<br />
l’Accord du lac Meech, qui a succombé à la règle de l’unanimité, démontre en<br />
quelque sorte par l’absurde les inconvénients qu’aurait entraînés l’extension<br />
de cette règle.<br />
Les difficultés de fonctionnement de la procédure de modification qu’a mises<br />
en évidence l’échec de l’Accord du lac Meech amènent actuellement le<br />
gouvernement fédéral à rechercher les moyens de simplifier cette procédure et,<br />
en particulier, de diminuer les cas où l’unanimité serait exigée. Cependant, en<br />
vertu de l’article 41(e) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, tout changement de<br />
la procédure de modification exige l’accord unanime des autorités fédérales et<br />
des dix provinces7. <strong>La</strong> reconnaissance de la dualité linguistique du Canada et du caractère<br />
distinct du Québec<br />
L’Accord du lac Meech contenait également des dispositions reconnaissant la<br />
dualité linguistique du Canada et le caractère distinct de la société québécoise.<br />
Ce sont ces dispositions, surtout celles relatives au caractère distinct du<br />
Québec, qui ont suscité les critiques les plus virulentes. Les adversaires de<br />
l’Accord ont prétendu tout à la fois qu’elles avaient pour effet de conférer au<br />
Québec plus de pouvoirs qu’aux autres provinces et qu’elles lui permettraient<br />
de limiter, voire de supprimer les droits et libertés garantis dans la <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
canadienne. Ces craintes étaient très nettement exagérées.<br />
D’abord, en ce qui concerne le partage des compétences, l’Accord du lac<br />
Meech contenait une disposition qui empêchait de façon très claire qu’on<br />
puisse faire découler de la reconnaissance du caractère distinct du Québec<br />
quelque modification que ce soit à l’actuelle répartition des pouvoirs entre le<br />
Parlement canadien et l’Assemblée législative du Québec. Par conséquent,<br />
l’Accord n’augmentait pas les pouvoirs de la province, pas plus qu’il ne les<br />
diminuait.<br />
17
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Ensuite, il faut relativiser les dangers que l’Accord constitutionnel faisait<br />
prétendûment courir aux droits et libertés. À cet égard, il y a lieu de distinguer<br />
entre les droits individuels et les droits collectifs des minorités.<br />
Les droits individuels, universels par nature, ne semblaient guère menacés : il<br />
eût été en effet fort difficile de prouver que le caractère distinct du Québec<br />
exigeait leur limitation, puisque par définition, ils sont les mêmes partout. Par<br />
contre, les droits à portée culturelle et linguistique, de nature collective, étaient<br />
à première vue plus vulnérables, puisqu’ils portent sur les mêmes réalités que<br />
celles qui constituent le caractère distinct du Québec (la langue et la culture) et<br />
qu’ils ne sont pas eux-mêmes universels et fondamentaux, mais propres à une<br />
situation sociale et culturelle contingente. Cependant, toutes les précautions<br />
avaient été prises pour que la reconnaissance du caractère distinct du Québec<br />
ne vienne pas diminuer les droits reconnus dans la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des<br />
droits et libertés ou dans d’autres dispositions constitutionnelles aux minorités<br />
qui vivent sur le territoire québécois. Pour ce qui est des droits de la minorité<br />
anglophone du Québec, ils étaient réaffirmés par la disposition faisant de la<br />
dualité linguistique une « caractéristique fondamentale de la fédération<br />
canadienne ». Manifestement, la protection de la minorité anglophone aurait<br />
toujours priorité sur la promotion du caractère francophone distinct du<br />
Québec. Quant aux autres minorités ethniques et culturelles du Québec, elles<br />
sont protégées par l’article 27 de la <strong>Charte</strong> qui garantit « le maintien et la<br />
valorisation du patrimoine multiculturel ». Or, cet article 27 a été purement et<br />
simplement soustrait à la portée de l’Accord du lac Meech, tout comme<br />
d’ailleurs les dispositions constitutionnelles qui protègent les droits des<br />
peuples autochtones (articles 25 de la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits et libertés<br />
et 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982).<br />
Ce bilan rapide tend donc à démontrer que l’incidence des dispositions<br />
relatives au caractère distinct du Québec sur les droits garantis par la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>, qu’ils soient individuels ou collectifs, ne pouvait être que<br />
négligeable8. Les causes de l’échec de l’Accord du lac Meech<br />
Pour entrer en vigueur, l’Accord du lac Meech devait être ratifié par le<br />
Parlement fédéral et l’assemblée législative de chacune des dix provmces.<br />
Dans les deux ans qui ont suivi la conclusion de l’Accord, des élections<br />
provinciales au Nouveau-Brunswick, au Manitoba et à Terre-Neuve<br />
amenèrent au pouvoir des chefs de gouvernement qui n’avaient pas participé à<br />
la négociation et à la signature de l’Accord et qui refusèrent de le faire ratifier<br />
par leur assemblée législative ou même — dans le cas de Terre-Neuve — firent<br />
révoquer par cette dernière la résolution d’agrément qu’elle avait déjà<br />
adoptée9. L’échec de l’Accord du lac Meech s’explique en bonne partie par la<br />
« globalisation » du processus de modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong> qui, à<br />
l’origine, était exclusivement destiné à permettre l’adhésion du Québec à la<br />
Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Mais la raison la plus importante de cet échec<br />
tient à l’incompatibilité profonde qui s’est manifestée entre les aspirations<br />
constitutionnelles du Québec et celles d’une gr<strong>and</strong>e partie du Canada anglais.<br />
18
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
<strong>La</strong> « globalisation » du processus de modification constitutionnelle<br />
Le processus de modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong>, qui était d’abord destiné à<br />
satisfaire les conditions du Québec, s’est rapidement « globalisé ». Les trois<br />
provinces récalcitrantes liaient leur acceptation de l’Accord à une réforme du<br />
Sénat. Il faut reconnaître que cette attitude se justifiait par le fait que la réforme<br />
du Sénat serait devenue beaucoup plus difficile si l’Accord du lac Meech était<br />
entré en vigueur, puisqu’elle aurait été soumise à la règle de l’unanimité (alors<br />
qu’à l’heure actuelle, une telle réforme n’exige que l’accord des autorités<br />
fédérales et de sept provinces, représentant 50 p. 100 de la population).<br />
En outre, de nombreux groupes d’intérêt ont voulu profiter de l’occasion pour<br />
obtenir la satisfaction de leurs propres revendications constitutionnelles.<br />
Ainsi, les peuples autochtones du Canada ont vivement combattu l’Accord du<br />
lac Meech. Leur opposition était en partie motivée par les dispositions portant<br />
sur la procédure d’amendement de la <strong>Constitution</strong> qui faisaient en sorte, une<br />
fois l’Accord entré en vigueur, que la création de nouvelles provinces au<br />
Yukon et dans les Territoires du Nord-Ouest exigerait l’assentiment de toutes<br />
les provinces et non plus l’accord de sept d’entre elles comme c’est le cas à<br />
l’heure actuelle. Mais le principal grief des autochtones à l’égard de l’Accord<br />
se situait sur le plan de la symbolique constitutionnelle. En effet, de tous les<br />
groupes opposés à l’Accord du lac Meech, les autochtones étaient le seul à<br />
revendiquer d’être reconnu comme une « société distincte » parce qu’il est le<br />
seul, avec le Québec, à avoir des ambitions « nationales » ou, du moins, des<br />
revendications en matière d’autonomie gouvernementale. Les autochtones<br />
considéraient que leur reconnaissance comme « société distincte » aurait<br />
favorisé ces revendications sur un plan politique. Il faut également souligner<br />
que celles-ci avaient été présentées une nouvelle fois, quelques semaines<br />
seulement avant l’Accord du lac Meech, lors d’une conférence<br />
constitutionnelle qui avait échoué. Enfin, alors que les peuples autochtones<br />
peuvent invoquer une légitimité historique antérieure à celle des deux<br />
« peuples fondateurs » — les anglophones et les francophones — leur<br />
existence n’a pas été reconnue comme une « caractéristique fondamentale »<br />
dans l’Accord du lac Meech ni ailleurs dans la <strong>Constitution</strong>.<br />
L’Accord du lac Meech a également entraîné l’intervention des associations<br />
féministes du Canada anglais qui prétendaient que la limitation du pouvoir de<br />
dépenser du gouvernement fédéral empêcherait celui-ci de mettre sur pied un<br />
programme national de garderies. Ces associations craignaient également que<br />
la reconnaissance du caractère distinct du Québec ne menace le droit des<br />
femmes à l’égalité. De même, les Anglo-Québécois sont intervenus pour<br />
dénoncer l’Accord dans la mesure où ils considéraient que les dispositions<br />
reconnaissant le caractère distinct du Québec menaçaient leurs droits<br />
linguistiques. De leur côté, les francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick ont<br />
cautionné l’opposition de leur gouvernement à l’Accord du lac Meech parce<br />
qu’ils voulaient profiter du processus pour faire inscrire dans la <strong>Constitution</strong> le<br />
principe de l’égalité de statut des communautés francophone et anglophone de<br />
la province, ce qui aurait cependant pu être réalisé par simple entente entre les<br />
autorités fédérales et celles du Nouveau-Brunswick10. Enfin, de nombreuses<br />
minorités culturelles et ethniques ont eu le sentiment que l’Accord du lac<br />
Meech rabaissait le statut que leur octroyait l’article 27 de la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
canadienne des droits et libertés qui prévoit le maintien et la promotion du<br />
multiculturalisme. C’est pourquoi ces groupes voulaient faire modifier<br />
l’Accord de façon à ce que le multiculturalisme soit également reconnu<br />
comme une « caractéristique fondamentale du Canada ».<br />
19
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
On peut donc constater que toute tentative de réforme constitutionnelle<br />
provoque désormais l’intervention quasi automatique de nombreux groupes<br />
d’intérêts. Toute légitime que soit cette tendance sur le plan démocratique, il<br />
n’en reste pas moins qu’elle augmente considérablement les difficultés de<br />
fonctionnement de la procédure de modification.<br />
Le choc des aspirations et des identités nationales du Québec et du Canada<br />
anglais<br />
Il est vrai que deux provinces seulement (le Manitoba et le Nouveau-<br />
Brunswick), représentant moins de 8 p. 100 de la population canadienne, ont<br />
finalement refusé l’Accord, les sept autres provinces anglophones l’ayant<br />
entériné. Cependant, les sondages démontrent qu’à l’intérieur de celles-ci, une<br />
large majorité — entre 60 p. 100 et 70 p. 100 de la population — était fortement<br />
opposée à l’Accord du lac Meech. En fait, la controverse autour de l’Accord a<br />
révélé les divergences profondes qui existent entre les visions et les aspirations<br />
constitutionnelles du Québec et celles du Canada anglais, qu’il s’agisse de la<br />
répartition des pouvoirs entre l’État central et les provinces, du rôle reconnu à<br />
la <strong>Charte</strong> constitutionnelle, de la politique linguistique et des droits des<br />
minorités ou encore — et surtout — de la place du Québec au sein de la<br />
fédération canadienne.<br />
<strong>La</strong> répartition des pouvoirs<br />
En ce qui concerne le partage des pouvoirs entre les deux ordres de<br />
gouvernement, il paraît clair que les Canadiens anglais, en majorité, sont<br />
désireux de voir s’établir une plus gr<strong>and</strong>e centralisation, notamment dans les<br />
domaines de l’éducation, de la culture, des télecommunications et de la<br />
politique sociale, domaines pour lesquels le Québec réclame, au contraire, une<br />
plus gr<strong>and</strong>e décentralisation. Aux yeux de nombreux Canadiens anglais, cela<br />
est nécessaire pour assurer une plus gr<strong>and</strong>e égalité entre les citoyens et<br />
consolider l’identité nationale canadienne face à l’influence des États-Unis.<br />
Cette opinion est particulièrement rép<strong>and</strong>ue chez les élites canadiennesanglaises<br />
de gauche et de centre-gauche: bien que traditionnellement<br />
sympathiques aux revendications du Québec, celles-ci se sont opposées à<br />
l’Accord du lac Meech parce qu’elles y voyaient une diminution des pouvoirs<br />
du gouvernement fédéral.<br />
Il faut également souligner que six des neuf provinces anglophones ont des<br />
revenus fiscaux inférieurs à la moyenne nationale et, par conséquent,<br />
bénéficient des paiements de péréquation et autres transferts fédéraux par le<br />
biais desquels le gouvernement central procède à une certaine redistribution de<br />
la richesse nationale. Pour la plupart de ces provinces, les versements fédéraux<br />
constituent une part fort importante de leur budget et, pour cette raison, elles<br />
sont évidemment opposées à toute réforme constitutionnelle qui affaiblirait<br />
l’État centrall1. En outre, comme on l’a mentionné précédemment, les provinces de<br />
l’Atlantique et de l’Ouest, moins peuplées que le Québec et l’Ontario, espèrent<br />
qu’une réforme du Sénat leur accordera plus de pouvoir au sein des institutions<br />
centrales; dans cette mesure, elles veulent évidemment qu’elles le deviennent<br />
davantage. Elles recherchent donc plus d’influence sur le processus politique<br />
fédéral par le biais d’une Chambre haute renforcée où elles seront mieux<br />
représentées qu’à la Chambre des communes.<br />
Enfin, il faut constater que le sentiment d’identité nationale des Canadiens<br />
anglais est davantage associé à l’État central et à ses institutions qu’aux<br />
20
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
pouvoirs publics provinciaux. Par conséquent, toute dimininution du rôle et<br />
des pouvoirs d’Ottawa est perçue comme une menace ou une attaque contre<br />
cette identité. Les Québécois, au contraire, surtout depuis la « Révolution<br />
tranquille », accordent principalement leur confiance et leur loyauté à l’État<br />
provincial, ce qui est fort compréhensible, puisque c’est le seul État qu’ils<br />
contrôlent de façon démocratique. Par conséquent, à l’inverse de ce qui se<br />
passe pour les Canadiens anglais, ce sont les visées centralisatrices qui<br />
menacent le sentiment d’identité nationale des Québécois francophones.<br />
Les attitudes à l’égard de la <strong>Charte</strong> canadiennes des droits et libertés<br />
<strong>La</strong> même divergence existe en ce qui concerne les attitudes respectives des<br />
Canadiens anglais et des Québécois francophones à l’égard de la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
constitutionnelle. Au Canada anglais, celle-ci sert désormais de symbole<br />
national. L’universalité des principes qui y sont enchâssés permet de<br />
transcender les nombreuses différences de culture et d’origine qui existent<br />
dans une population composée en gr<strong>and</strong>e partie d’immigrants venus de toutes<br />
les parties du monde. Cependant, dans la mesure précisément où les droits de la<br />
personne sont généralement considérés comme devant être appliqués et<br />
interprétés partout de la même façon, l’application d’une charte<br />
constitutionnelle commune au Canada anglais et au Québec pourrait, à la<br />
longue, avoir des effets socialement uniformisateurs et par conséquent,<br />
menacer le caractère distinct de la société québécoisel2. <strong>La</strong> mise en œuvre des<br />
droits et libertés touche des problèmes de culture et de civilisation et amène les<br />
tribunaux à se substituer au législateur pour effectuer certains « choix de<br />
société ». Or, dans le cadre de la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne, cette mise en oeuvre se fait<br />
à l’echelle nationale par le truchement d’une hiérarchie judiciaire centralisée<br />
qui utilise inévitablement une approche uniforme pour interpréter les<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ards constitutionnels (on a souligné précédemment que les juges des<br />
cours supérieures et des cours d’appel provinciales sont nommés de façon<br />
discrétionnaire par le gouvernement fédéral). Dans la mesure où l’application<br />
de la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne est susceptible de limiter les pouvoirs et la liberté de<br />
choix des organes démocratiques de l’État québécois, on comprendra qu’elle<br />
ne suscite pas au Québec les mêmes sentiments de ferveur que dans les autres<br />
provincesl3. En cherchant à faire reconnaître le caractère distinct de la société<br />
québécoise, l’on voulait précisement se protéger contre les effets<br />
uniformisateurs de la <strong>Charte</strong> espérant que cette disposition inciterait les<br />
tribunaux à tenir compte des besoins particuliers du Québec14. En 1975, l’Assemblée nationale du Québec a adopté une <strong>Charte</strong> des droits et<br />
libertés de la personne15 qui possède une valeur « quasi constitutionnelle »,<br />
puisqu’elle a primauté sur les lois québécoises ordinaires. Les Québécois<br />
francophones considèrent généralement que cet instrument les protège<br />
adéquatement et que, s’il y a lieu de le constitutionnaliser, il devrait figurer<br />
dans une nouvelle constitution du Québec, laquelle pourrait être adoptée soit<br />
dans l’actuel cadre fédéral canadien, soit à l’occasion de l’accession du<br />
Québec à la souverainetél6. Les droits des minorités et les politiques linguistiques<br />
En ce qui concerne la politique linguistique et les droits des minorités, le<br />
Canada anglais reproche au Québec de limiter les droits de sa minorité<br />
anglophone au moment même où le statut juridique des francophones hors du<br />
Québec benéficie d’une certaine amélioration. Cette vision « symétrique »<br />
méconnaît cependant le fait que les francophones, même s’ils sont en situation<br />
de majorité au Québec, constituent une minorité en perte d’influence à<br />
21
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
l’echelle du pays. En effet, tous les efforts consentis par les autorités fédérales<br />
et certaines provinces pour améliorer le sort des minorités francophones n’ont<br />
pas réussi à freiner le taux d’assimilation de ces groupes. Même au Québec, où<br />
90 p. 100 des francophones du Canada sont désormais concentrés, le fait<br />
français n’est pas à l’abri du danger, puisque les immigrants continuent de<br />
s’assimiler de préférence à la communauté anglophonel7. Pour protéger la<br />
langue française, les autorités québécoises considèrent donc qu’il faut parfois<br />
limiter les droits traditionnels des anglophones, dans la mesure où les deux<br />
langues sont en situation de concurrence. <strong>La</strong> plupart des Canadiens anglais<br />
rejettent cependant ces arguments et considèrent que la politique québécoise<br />
de la langue française viole le « pacte linguistique » tacite auquel ils ont<br />
consenti en acceptant la politique de bilinguisme officiel du gouvernement<br />
fédéral et celle de deux provinces anglophones (le Nouveau-Brunswick et,<br />
dans une moindre mesure, l’Ontario).<br />
<strong>La</strong> place du Ouébec au sein de la fédération<br />
Enfin, l’opposition la plus radicale qui se manifeste entre le Canada anglais et<br />
le Québec concerne la reconnaissance de celui-ci comme communauté<br />
nationale distincte. Depuis 1867, mais plus encore à partir de la « Révolution<br />
tranquille », le Québec aspire à un « statut particulier », qui se traduirait par<br />
l’obtention de pouvoirs supplémentaires, considérés comme nécessaires à<br />
l’épanouissement de la société québécoise. Cependant, à cette revendication<br />
de l’égalité entre les deux « peuples fondateurs », le Canada anglais a toujours<br />
opposé le double principe de l’égalité des provinces et des individus.<br />
L’insistance mise sur l’égalité juridique de toutes les provinces empêche<br />
évidemment de reconnaître à l’une d’entre elles un statut ou des pouvoirs<br />
particuliers. Mais il s’agit là d’un principe plutôt artificiel, qui ne correspond<br />
d’ailleurs pas au droit positif, puisque la <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne contient déjà<br />
plusieurs dispositions qui traitent certaines provinces différemment des autres,<br />
notamment sur le plan des droits linguistiques. Quant à l’égalité des individus,<br />
garantie par la <strong>Charte</strong> constitutionnelle, l’interprétation radicale et quelque<br />
peu simpliste qu’on lui donne parfois rend également plus difficiles les<br />
arrangements institutionnels qui reconnaîtraient au Québec un statut<br />
particulier. En effet, comme le montrent certains arguments des opposants à<br />
l’Accord du lac Meech, de tels arrangements sont considérés au Canada<br />
anglais comme accordant aux Québécois plus de droits qu’aux Canadiens des<br />
autres provinces18. On peut donc conclure en affirmant que l’opposition entre le Canada anglais et<br />
le Québec a pris les allures d’un choc entre deux « sociétés globales », deux<br />
communautés nationales distinctes, dont la coexistence ne semble plus guère<br />
possible dans le cadre des structures constitutionnelles actuelles19. Il faut alors<br />
se dem<strong>and</strong>er si une association — ou communauté — entre ces deux nations<br />
est encore possible, et sous quelle forme.<br />
Le rejet de l’Accord de Charlottetown en 1992 et l’avenir des rapports<br />
entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
Un peu plus de deux ans après l’échec de l’Accord du lac Meech, un nouvel<br />
accord constitutionnel, appelé « l’Accord de Charlottetown », était conclu par<br />
les onze premiers ministres auxquels s’étaient joints cette fois les<br />
représentants des Peuples autochtones du Canada. Soumis à référendum le 26<br />
octobre 1992, l’Accord de Charlottetown a été rejeté par la population de façon<br />
décisive, tant au Québec que dans le reste du Canada. Après avoir examiné sa<br />
22
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
genèse et son contenu, puis les causes de son échec, on terminera en tentant<br />
d’analyser les options encore disponibles pour l’avenir.<br />
<strong>La</strong> genèse et le contenu de l ’Accord de Charlottetown<br />
En septembre 1990, le gouvernement Bourassa et l’opposition péquiste se sont<br />
entendus pour créer une commission parlementaire élargie (la Commission<br />
Bélanger-Campeau, du nom de ses deux coprésidents) qui a reçu le m<strong>and</strong>at<br />
d’étudier les options possibles et de proposer des solutions pour l’avenir<br />
politique et constitutionnel du Québec. <strong>La</strong> Commission a remis son rapport en<br />
mars 1991 dans lequel elle conclut que les deux seules voies de solution qui<br />
s’ouvrent pour l’avenir sont la modification en profondeur du cadre<br />
constitutionnel actuel ou, sinon, l’accession du Québec à la souveraineté avec<br />
ou sans l’accord du Canada anglais20. Les principales recomm<strong>and</strong>ations de la<br />
Commission B.-C. ont été entérinées par le gouvernement quelques mois plus<br />
tard lorsque celui-ci a fait adopter par l’Assemblée nationale la Loi sur le<br />
processus de détermination de l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du<br />
Québec21. Celle-ci prévoyait la tenue d’un référendum sur la souveraineté du<br />
Québec au plus tard le 26 octobre 1992. Entre-temps, il restait loisible au<br />
gouvernement fédéral et aux autres provinces d’offrir au Québec de nouveaux<br />
arrangements constitutionnels.<br />
Le 24 septembre 1991, le gouvernement fédéral de M. Brian Mulroney<br />
présentait ses propositions de renouvellement constitutionnel22. Un comité<br />
mixte spécial du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes était créé pour<br />
parcourir le Canada afin de recueillir les réactions à ces propositions et de<br />
suggérer, le cas échéant, des modifications. Le rapport du comité a été déposé<br />
le 28 février 199223. En outre, à partir de la fin du mois de janvier, une série de<br />
conférences fut organisée pour permettre à certains groupes d’intérêts et à des<br />
personnes choisies dans le gr<strong>and</strong> public de discuter les propositions<br />
constitutionnelles du gouvernement fédéral. Entre le 12 mars et le 7 juillet<br />
1992, les recomm<strong>and</strong>ations du comité mixte allaient servir de base de<br />
discussion lors d’une série de rencontres entre les représentants des autorités<br />
fédérales, des provinces (le Québec excepté), des territoires et des peuples<br />
autochtones. À partir du 4 août 1992, se tinrent ensuite un certain nombre de<br />
réunions des premiers ministres, fédéral et provinciaux, auxquelles accepta de<br />
participer le chef du gouvernement du Québec, M. Robert Bourassa. Elles<br />
devaient aboutir, le 28 août, à un accord constitutionnel appelé « l’Accord de<br />
Charlottetown ». Cependant, ce n’est que le 9 octobre suivant que furent<br />
rendus publics les textes juridiques définitifs de l’entente, lesquels<br />
comportaient de nombreuses questions en suspens, qui devaient par<br />
conséquent faire l’objet de négociations futures. C’est sous cette forme<br />
quelque peu inachevée et programmatique que le projet de réforme<br />
constitutionnelle fut soumis à la populatlon, qui le repoussa — tant au Québec<br />
que dans cinq autres provinces — lors d’un référendum qui eut lieu le 26<br />
octobre 199224. Étant donné le rejet de l’Accord de Charlottetown, il n’est pas<br />
nécessaire d’en analyser le contenu en détail. Nous en ferons cependant une<br />
brève description pour tenter de comprendre pourquoi il a été rejeté et quelles<br />
conséquences sont susceptibles de découler de ce nouvel échec.<br />
Dans le nouveau projet de modification constitutionnelle, les dispositions<br />
relatives au caractère distinct du Québec étaient désormais inscrites dans une<br />
« clause Canada », destinée à étre placée au début de la <strong>Constitution</strong>, qui<br />
énonçait huit « caractéristiques fondamentales » avec lesquelles devrait<br />
concorder l’interprétation de la <strong>Constitution</strong>, notamment la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
23
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
canadienne des droits et libertés. Parmi les sept autres « caractéristiques<br />
fondamentales » ainsi consacrées, deux au moins risquaient d’entrer en conflit<br />
avec le caractère distinct du Québec : d’une part, le principe de l’égalité de<br />
toutes les provinces et, d’autre part, « l’attachement [commitment en anglais]<br />
des Canadiens et de leurs gouvernements à l’épanouissement et au<br />
développement des communautés minoritaires de langue officielle dans tout le<br />
pays » (c’est-à-dire, au Québec, de la minorité anglophone). Par ailleurs, le<br />
paragraphe 2 de la clause Canada affirmait que « [l]a législature et le<br />
gouvernement du Québec ont le rôle de protéger et de promouvoir la société<br />
distincte. »<br />
Toutes ces règles d’interprétation auraient eu sensiblement le même poids<br />
juridique. Par conséquent, il n’aurait pas été possible pour les tribunaux<br />
d’interpréter la <strong>Constitution</strong> de façon distincte pour le Québec, puisque cela<br />
aurait été contraire à l’égalité interprovinciale. De même, interpréter la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> comme permettant une mesure qui affecterait négativement le<br />
développement et l’épanouissement de la minorité anglo-québécoise serait<br />
allé à l’encontre de la disposition protégeant les minorités de langue officielle.<br />
Avec cette disposition, la minorité anglophone aurait même disposé d’une<br />
nouvelle arme pour contester les réglementations linguistiques québécoises<br />
considérées comme incompatibles avec la protection et l’épanouissement de la<br />
langue anglaise. Il est vrai que le Québec aurait alors pu arguer que les mesures<br />
contestées étaient necessaires pour protéger et promouvolr son caractère<br />
distinct. Les tribunaux auraient dès lors été obligés de constater qu’il y avait<br />
contradiction entre la promotion des droits de la majorité, fondée sur le<br />
caractère distinct du Québec, et l’épanouissement des droits de la minorité et<br />
auraient donc dû déterminer laquelle de ces deux « caractéristiques<br />
fondamentales » devait se voir reconnaître la primauté.<br />
Pour terminer, il faut souligner que dans l’Accord de Charlottetown,<br />
contrairement à l’Accord du lac Meech, la « société distincte » était définie<br />
comme « comprenant notamment une majorité d’expression française, une<br />
culture qui est unique et une tradition de droit civil ». Bien que n’étant pas<br />
exhaustive, cette énumération était de nature à limiter le contenu de la société<br />
distincte dans la mesure où les tribunaux auraient pu appliquer la règle voulant<br />
que seuls des éléments analogues à ceux qui sont énumérés peuvent être<br />
ajoutés par interprétation à une liste non exhaustive (règle ejusdem generis).<br />
Or, le « genre » des trois éléments mentionnés, leur trait commun, était leur<br />
caractère traditionnel : il s’agissait de caractères particuliers du Québec qui<br />
existaient déjà au moment où celui-ci était entré dans la fédération en 1867. Par<br />
conséquent, on pouvait prétendre que le caractère distinct du Québec, tel qu’il<br />
était reconnu dans la clause Canada, était lié au passé et à l’histoire. Rien ne<br />
permettait évidemment de prétendre avec certitude que les tribunaux auraient<br />
retenu ce genre d’interprétation, mais cette possibilité ne pouvait pas<br />
davantage être exclue.<br />
En tenant compte des différences qui viennent d’être mentionnées, il faut donc<br />
constater que la reconnaissance du caractère distinct du Québec dans l’Accord<br />
de Charlottetown avait perdu de sa portée par rapport à l’Accord du <strong>La</strong>c<br />
Meech.<br />
L’Accord constitutionnel de Charlottetown comprenait également des<br />
dispositions relatives à la réforme du Sénat, de la Chambre des communes et de<br />
la Cour suprême.<br />
24
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
Concernant la réforme du Sénat, l’accord constitutionnel prévoyait que celuici<br />
serait « égal », chaque province étant représentée par six sénateurs et chaque<br />
territoire par un. Dans un premier temps, la proportion des sièges du Québec au<br />
Sénat serait donc passée de 23,1 p. 100 à 9,7 p. 100. Mais elle aurait ensuite<br />
continué à diminuer. En effet, l’accord constitutionnel prévoyait également de<br />
nouvelles négociations pour ajouter des sièges au Sénat afin d’y représenter les<br />
peuples autochtones. En outre, au fur et à mesure de la créaton de nouvelles<br />
provinces, il aurait fallu à nouveau augmenter le nombre des sièges de la<br />
Chambre haute. À cet égard, il faut souligner que le Québec n’avait pas obtenu,<br />
comme il le dem<strong>and</strong>ait, un droit de veto sur la création de nouvelles provinces.<br />
Au contraire, l’Accord de Charlottetown entraînait un recul de la position<br />
provinciale sur ce plan. Alors qu’à l’heure actuelle, en vertu de la Loi<br />
constitutionnelle de 1982, il faut le consentement de sept provinces<br />
représentant 50 p. 100 de la population pour créer une nouvelle province à<br />
partir d’un des deux territoires, l’Accord de 1992 prévoyait qu’il suffirait d’un<br />
accord entre les autorités fédérales et le territoire intéressé. Il est vrai, par<br />
contre, qu’il était également prévu que les provinces existantes devraient<br />
consentir, à l’unanimité, aux modalités de participation de la nouvelle<br />
province à la procédure de modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong> ainsi qu’à<br />
l’augmentation de sa représentation au Sénat. Il aurait donc pu arriver, par<br />
exemple, que deux nouvelles provinces soient créées pour les Territoires du<br />
Nord-Ouest, mais qu’une ou plusieurs provinces s’opposent à l’augmentation<br />
du nombre des sénateurs, avec le résultat que le principe de l’égalité de<br />
représentation des provinces au Sénat n’aurait pas pu être respecté. Les<br />
pressions pour l’augmentation des membres de la Chambre haute seraient<br />
alors devenues très fortes et, sur un plan pratique et politique, les provinces<br />
récalcitrantes auraient eu beaucoup de difficultés à maintenir leur obstruction.<br />
Selon l’Accord de Charlottetown, les sénateurs devaient être élus soit par la<br />
population, soit par l’assemblée législative provinciale, selon ce que chaque<br />
province déciderait.<br />
En ce qui concerne les attributions législatives du nouveau Sénat, l’Accord de<br />
Charlottetown distinguait quatre catégories de projets de lois. Le Sénat<br />
disposerait d’un droit de veto absolu sur les projets de loi supposant « des<br />
changements fondamentaux du régime fiscal directement lié aux ressources<br />
naturelles ». Par contre, pour les projets de loi traitant des recettes et des<br />
dépenses (les projets de loi de crédits), le nouveau Sénat n’aurait qu’un droit de<br />
veto suspensif de trente jours, la Chambres des communes pouvant réadopter<br />
le projet au bout de cette période par une majorité ordinaire. Quant aux projets<br />
de loi « touchant de façon importante à la langue ou à la culture française », ils<br />
devraient être adoptés par une majorité de tous les sénateurs et par une majorité<br />
des sénateurs francophones (les sénateurs francophones étant ceux qui se<br />
déclarent comme tels au moment de leur accession au Sénat). Enfin, pour ce<br />
qui est des projets de loi « ordinaires », c’est-à-dire n’entrant dans aucune des<br />
trois catégories précédentes, le rejet ou la modification d’un projet de loi par le<br />
Sénat déclencherait un processus de séance conjointe des deux Chambres; un<br />
vote à la majorité simple en séance conjointe déciderait alors du sort du projet<br />
de loi. Par ailleurs, le nombre des députés serait augmenté substantiellement.<br />
Par conséquent, lorsque le gouvernement aurait disposé d’une solide majorité<br />
à la Chambre des Communes, comme c’est normalement le cas, il n’aurait pas<br />
eu de difficulté à faire renverser par celle-ci le veto que le Sénat pouvait<br />
opposer à ses projets (autres que ceux portant sur la fiscalité des ressources<br />
naturelles et la langue ou la culture française). En revanche, dans les cas où le<br />
25
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
gouvernement fédéral aurait été minoritaire ou n’aurait disposé que d’une<br />
faible majorité (comme cela est quelques fois arrivé au cours des quarante<br />
dernières années), l’alliance entre les partis d’opposition aux Communes et un<br />
certain nombre de sénateurs aurait pu être fatale à de nombreux projets de loi<br />
s’ils avaient fait l’objet d’un vote en séance conjointe. Dans un tel cas, le<br />
Cabinet pouvait même être contraint de dissoudre le Parlement et de faire des<br />
élections, bien qu’en théorie, selon l’Accord constitutionnel, le nouveau Sénat<br />
ne se voyait pas reconnaître le pouvoir de renverser le gouvernement.<br />
On constate donc que la réforme du Sénat risquait de compliquer, voire<br />
d’entraver sérieusement le fonctionnement du système parlementaire<br />
canadien. On peut ajouter à cela que la réforme aurait mis en mouvement une<br />
dynamique dont il était fort difficile d’évaluer les effets futurs. Dans la mesure<br />
où les sénateurs auraient été titulaires d’une légitimité démocratique<br />
semblable à celles des députés fédéraux, ils auraient pu exercer un pouvoir<br />
politique et moral, sinon juridique, considérable (il est illogique de donner au<br />
Sénat une forte légitimité démocratique sans lui reconnaître d’importants<br />
pouvoirs). Cela risquait de susciter de fortes pressions en faveur de<br />
l’augmentation des prérogatives de la Chambre haute.<br />
L’Accord de Charlottetown accordait au Québec la garantie de n’avoir jamais<br />
moins de 25 p. 100 des sièges à la Chambre des communes sans égard à<br />
l’importance relative de sa population. Il s’agissait là d’une protection qui était<br />
loin d’être négligeable pour l’avenir. En effet, si la population québécoise<br />
représente actuellement un peu plus du quart de l’ensemble canadien, elle<br />
devrait, selon les estimations, bientôt tomber sous ce seuil et continuer de<br />
diminuer au cours du XXIe siècle. <strong>La</strong> Chambre des communes restant le<br />
principal lieu d’exercice du pouvoir législatif fédéral, il est important que le<br />
Québec y soit protégé contre une diminution de sa représentation. Cependant,<br />
il ne faut pas exagérer la portée de cette garantie. En effet, les députés sont<br />
généralement prisonniers de la discipline de parti et votent par conséquent bien<br />
plus en fonction des consignes de leur parti politique que des intérêts de la<br />
province qu’ils représentent. Par conséquent, la présence d’un fort contingent<br />
de députés québécois à Ottawa ne constitue pas nécessairement une garantie<br />
que le gouvernement fédéral respectera les orientations et les priorités du<br />
gouvernement du Québec.<br />
Concernant la nomination des juges de la Cour suprême, l’Accord de<br />
Charlottetown reprenait essentiellement les dispositions de l’Accord du lac<br />
Meech. En effet, il était prévu de constitutionnaliser les dispositions de la Loi<br />
sur la Cour suprême voulant que trois des neuf juges de la Cour doivent avoir<br />
été reçus au Barreau du Québec, c’est-à-dire être des civilistes, et l’on<br />
prévoyait que le gouvernement québécois pourrait présenter la liste à partir de<br />
laquelle le gouvernement fédéral devrait nommer les juges venant du Québec.<br />
Par contre, contrairement à ce que prévoyait l’Accord du lac Meech, les<br />
modifications futures du processus de sélection des juges de la Cour suprême<br />
n’exigeraient pas le consentement de toutes les provinces (ce qui aurait donné<br />
au Québec un droit de veto), mais seulement l’accord de sept d’entre elles,<br />
représentant la moitié de la population.<br />
Au chapitre de la répartition des pouvoirs, où le Québec réclame depuis trente<br />
ans une augmentation de ses compétences dans de nombreux domaines ainsi<br />
qu’une véritable limitation du pouvoir fédéral de dépenser, l’Accord<br />
constitutionnel consacrait essentiellement une forme de statu quo<br />
« remodelé ». En outre, rappelons que l’Accord n’énonçait dans ce domaine<br />
26
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
aucune règle propre au Québec, qui se trouvait donc traité exactement comme<br />
toutes les autres provinces.<br />
En premier lieu, dans un certain nombre de domaines (forêts, mines, tourisme,<br />
logement, loisirs, affaires municipales et urbaines) où les provinces possèdent<br />
déjà les pouvoirs législatifs, ceux-ci étaient formellement réaffirmés, en même<br />
temps qu’était également consacré le pouvoir de dépenser du gouvernement<br />
fédéral, lequel s’engageait à négocier son retrait par des accords valables pour<br />
cinq ans et renouvelables.<br />
Ensuite, la compétence législative exclusive des provinces était reconnue dans<br />
le domaine du développement et de la formation de la main- d’oeuvre, le<br />
fédéral conservant cependant le droit d’établir — de concert avec les provinces<br />
— des objectifs nationaux pour le premier de ces domaines. Là encore, le nonexercice<br />
du pouvoir fédéral de dépenser devait d’abord être négociée par les<br />
provinces. En outre, le fédéral conservait sa compétence exclusive à l’égard de<br />
l’assurance-chômage, y compris le soutien du revenu et les services connexes<br />
qu’il fournit dans ce cadre.<br />
En troisième lieu, en matière de culture, l’accord prévoyait une nouvelle<br />
disposition constitutionnelle reconnaissant la compétence exclusive des<br />
provinces relativement au « domaine de la culture dans la province »; en<br />
réalité, il ne s’agissait que d’une explicitation de la solution jurisprudentielle<br />
en vigueur , qui a été développée par les tribunaux sur la base de l’article 92 de<br />
la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867. Par ailleurs, la responsabilité des autorités<br />
fédérales sur les « affaires culturelles nationales » était également confirmée,<br />
le gouvernement fédéral conservant, là encore, son pouvoir de dépenser et<br />
s’engageant seulement à négocier des ententes visant à assurer aux provinces<br />
la « maîtrise d’oeuvre » de la politique culturelle sur leur territoire. Le même<br />
engagement fédéral de négocier des ententes de coordination et<br />
d’harmonisation s’appliquait aux domaines du développement régional et des<br />
télécommunications.<br />
En matière d’immigration, l’Accord de Charlottetown reprenait la substance<br />
des dispositions de l’Accord du lac Meech, c’est-à-dire que les ententes<br />
conclues dans ce domaine entre le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces<br />
étaient « protégées » constitutionnellement, de façon à ne pouvoir être<br />
modifiés, en principe, que par entente entre les deux parties. En fait, les<br />
autorités fédérales conservaient la possibilité de les modifier unilatéralement<br />
sur certains points en adoptant des normes nationales portant notamment sur<br />
les niveaux généraux d’immigration et les catégories d’immigrants<br />
admissibles.<br />
Enfin, dans tous les autres domaines de compétence provinciale exclusive —<br />
la santé ou l’éducation —, par exemple, le gouvernement fédéral conservait<br />
son pouvoir de dépenser, les provinces se voyant seulement reconnaître,<br />
comme dans l’Accord du lac Meech, le droit de refuser de participer à un<br />
nouveau programme cofinancé que le gouvernement fédéral créerait et<br />
d’obtenir une compensation financière, mais uniquement à condition de mettre<br />
elles-mêmes sur pied un programme « compatible avec les objectifs<br />
nationaux».<br />
En résumé, le principe général qui inspirait les dispositions de l’Accord<br />
relatives à la répartition des pouvoirs semble avoir été que toutes les<br />
compétences provinciales, y compris celles que la <strong>Constitution</strong> attribue aux<br />
provinces de façon « exclusive », sont en réalité perméables à l’intervention<br />
27
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
fédérale par le biais de son pouvoir de dépenser. Lorsque le fédéral acceptait de<br />
limiter ce pouvoir, c’était toujours de façon conditionnelle par des accords<br />
temporaires qu’un nouveau gouvernement, autrement disposé, pourrait<br />
refuser de renouveller.<br />
Parmi les autres dispositions de l’Accord de Charlottetown pertinentes à notre<br />
propos, rappelons celles portant sur les droits des peuples autochtones. On y<br />
consacrait le droit « inhérent » des peuples autochtones à l’autonomie<br />
gouvernementale et la création, à cet effet, d’un troisième ordre de<br />
gouvernement. Pendant une période de cinq ans, les onze gouvernements et les<br />
intéressés auraient tenté de préciser par voie de négociation la teneur de ce<br />
droit, à défaut de quoi celui-ci deviendrait exécutoire et pourrait alors être être<br />
défini par les tribunaux. Outre le fait qu’un tel projet déléguait ainsi un pouvoir<br />
trop considérable aux tribunaux, trois autres aspects ne manquaient pas<br />
d’inquiéter. En premier lieu, il n’était pas clair dans quelle mesure les lois<br />
autochtones devaient être compatibles avec les lois fédérales et provinciales25. Ensuite, l’Accord prévoyait que les autorités autochones pourraient déroger à<br />
la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits et libertés, ce qui inquiétait vivement les<br />
femmes autochtones, qui avaient peur que l’égalité sexuelle ne soit pas<br />
toujours respectée par les futurs gouvernements autochtones. Enfin, il semble<br />
que l’Accord aurait permis aux gouvernements autochtones de refuser les<br />
droits politiques aux non-autochtones vivant sur leur territoire; il se serait donc<br />
agi de gouvernements fondés au moins en partie sur l’appartenance raciale.<br />
Les causes du rejet de l’Accord de Charlottetown<br />
Comme on vient de le constater, l’Accord de Charlottetown ne répondait<br />
aucunement aux dem<strong>and</strong>es traditionnelles du Québec en matière de répartition<br />
des pouvoirs. Par ailleurs, sur de nombreux autres points, comme par exemple<br />
la réforme du Sénat, la reconnaissance du caractère distinct du Québec, le droit<br />
de veto sur les amendements à la <strong>Constitution</strong>, l’Accord représentait un recul<br />
par rapport Meech. Non seulement, le Québec ne se voyait pas reconnaître les<br />
nouveaux pouvoirs considérés comme nécessaires à son développement, mais<br />
pis encore, il n’obtenait pas même toutes les garanties nécessaires à la<br />
protection efficace de sa position minoritaire dans le cadre des institutions<br />
fédérales. Il n’est donc pas étonnant que l’Accord est été rejeté au Québec par<br />
une majorité de 56,6 p. 100 des électeurs parmi lesquels on trouvait, bien sûr,<br />
les souverainistes, mais également un gr<strong>and</strong> nombre de fédéralistes<br />
insatisfaits.<br />
Par ailleurs, l’Accord de Charlottetown contenait une réforme de la Chambre<br />
haute qui devait fatalement mécontenter les tenants du Sénat « Triple E »,<br />
puisque si le Sénat proposé était « égal » et élu, il était loin d’être aussi efficace<br />
que ces derniers l’auraient voulu. Il n’est donc pas étonnant que l’Accord ait<br />
aussi été rejeté dans les quatre provinces de l’Ouest de façon encore plus<br />
décisive qu’au Québec (par une majorité de 63,1 p. 100 des électeurs). <strong>La</strong><br />
mesure garantissant à perpétuité au Québec 25 p. 100 des sièges de la Chambre<br />
des communes a été particulièrement mal reçue en Colombie-Britannique, qui<br />
aurait ainsi continué à avoir une proportion de sièges moindre que ne le justifie<br />
sa forte croissance démographique. Les trois seules provinces où l’Accord a<br />
été accepté par une nette majorité sont Terre-Neuve, l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard<br />
et le Nouveau-Brunswick. En Nouvelle-Écosse, il a été rejeté par une mince<br />
majorité alors qu’en Ontario, une majorité encore plus réduite l’acceptait (à<br />
l’échelle nationale, l’Accord a été rejeté par 54 p. 100 des électeurs).<br />
28
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
En fait, on peut penser que l’Accord de Charlottetown était en quelque sorte<br />
condamné d’avance, puisqu’il heurtait de front les revendications des deux<br />
principaux « dem<strong>and</strong>eurs » en matière de réforme constitutionnelle : le<br />
Québec, qui n’obtenait pas les pouvoirs qu’il réclame depuis trente ans; les<br />
provinces de l’Ouest, qui se voyaient frustrées d’un véritable Sénat « Triple<br />
E » leur principale revendication depuis le milieu des années soixante-dix.<br />
Même les peuples autochtones ont majoritairement voté contre l’Accord, ce<br />
qui est plus difficile à comprendre étant donné qu’ils avaient réalisé des gains<br />
considérables, encore impensables il y a deux ou trois ans.<br />
Avec le bénéfice du recul, on comprend que pour avoir quelque chance de<br />
succès, les rédacteurs de l’Accord de Charlottetown auraient dû accepter<br />
d’augmenter les pouvoirs du Québec de façon « asymétrique » et donner en<br />
échange satisfaction aux provinces de l’Ouest pour ce qui est du Sénat « Triple<br />
E ». Sans doute, chacun des deux camps aurait-il encore eu des raisons de<br />
s’opposer à l’entente, mais également certains motifs puissants pour<br />
l’appuyer. Bien sûr, pour en arriver là, il aurait fallu accepter d’abord le<br />
principe d’un « statut particulier » pour le Québec, ce que la majorité des<br />
Canadiens anglais ne semble pas encore disposée à faire. Pourtant, il s’agit<br />
probablement de la seule avenue de changement qui reste encore ouverte pour<br />
l’avenir, mis à part l’accession du Québec à la souveraineté.<br />
<strong>La</strong> redéfinition du statut du Québec au sein du régime fédéral canadien : le<br />
fédéralisme « asymétrique » (ou statut particulier)<br />
Au cours des discussions constitutionnelles qui ont eu lieu en 1992, certains<br />
membres de l’intelligentsia et des milieux dirigeants canadiens-anglais ont<br />
présenté l’hypothèse d’un « fédéralisme asymétrique », qui permettrait au<br />
Québec d’exercer certains pouvoirs qui ne seraient pas nécessairement<br />
étendus aux autres provinces. Ce statut particulier devait cependant être<br />
« compensé » par une diminution correspondante de l’influence du Québec au<br />
sein des institutions centrales. Ainsi, les représentants du Québec au sein du<br />
Parlement canadien — députés et sénateurs — ne voteraient plus sur les lois<br />
touchant les domaines où la compétence aurait été transférée aux autorités de<br />
la province26. De même, les ministères correspondants ne devraient plus être<br />
dirigés par des Québécois et, à toute fin pratique, ceux-ci ne pourraient plus<br />
prétendre occuper le poste de Premier ministre fédéral ou celui de chef d’un<br />
parti politique national27. Selon les modalités retenues, pareil régime pourrait constituer soit un marché<br />
de dupes pour le Québec, soit une transformation profonde du système<br />
canadien qui évoluerait ainsi vers une « quasi-confédération » à deux.<br />
Le Québec perdrait évidemment au change si le transfert de pouvoirs en sa<br />
faveur n’était que minime et, par conséquent, insuffisant pour compenser sa<br />
perte d’influence subie au sein des institutions fédérales. Pour être satisfaisant,<br />
le transfert devrait porter sur la majeure partie des pouvoirs que les<br />
gouvernements québécois successifs revendiquent avec constance depuis une<br />
trentaine d’années. <strong>La</strong> liste en est longue28. Par ailleurs, le pouvoir de dépenser<br />
des autorités fédérales devrait être aboli — ou du moins ne s’exercer qu’avec<br />
l’accord du gouvernement québécois — autant dans les nouveaux domaines<br />
transférés au Québec que dans ceux qui sont traditionnellement de sa<br />
compétence exclusive. En effet, si ce pouvoir demeurait intact, le Québec ne<br />
tirerait rien de l’acquisition de nouvelles compétences, puisque le pouvoir de<br />
dépenser permet au fédéral d’obliger les provinces à se plier aux objectifs et<br />
29
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
aux normes qu’il fixe, même dans leurs champs de compétence exclusive. En<br />
outre, le transfert au Québec de nouvelles compétences législatives devrait<br />
s’accompagner du transfert correspondant de ressources financières, sous<br />
forme de ressources fiscales. Par conséquent, les Québécois bénéficieraient<br />
d’une réduction d’impôts fédéraux, ce qui permettrait un supplément de<br />
taxation provinciale correspondant aux services désormais fournis par la<br />
province. Étant donné que le Québec est la deuxième plus importante province<br />
(25 p. 100 de la population canadienne), un tel bouleversement fiscal et<br />
financier exigerait le réaménagement du système de la péréquation. Pour ce<br />
qui est de la réforme du Sénat, l’asymétrie pourrait être poussée jusqu’au point<br />
où celui-ci ne réunirait que les représentants du Canada anglais et, dès lors,<br />
n’interviendrait plus que pour les lois ne s’appliquant uniquement qu’à<br />
l’extérieur du Québec29. En outre, la <strong>Charte</strong> constitutionnelle pourrait être<br />
déclarée inapplicable au Québec et la <strong>Charte</strong> québécoise, en échange, se voir<br />
attribuer un véritable statut constitutionnel en étant « enchâssée » par une<br />
procédure spéciale d’amendement. <strong>La</strong> Cour suprême du Canada pourrait<br />
perdre sa compétence à l’égard des affaires de droit civil québécois, la Cour<br />
d’appel du Québec devenant la juridiction de dernière instance dans ce<br />
domaine : l’on pourrait même créer au sein de la Cour suprême une chambre<br />
spécialisée en matière constitutionnelle dont les membres seraient nommés<br />
conjointement par le gouvernement fédéral et le gouvernement du Québec.<br />
Enfin, la proportion des sièges du Québec à la Chambre des communes devrait<br />
être garantie et le Québec devrait obtenir un droit de veto sur les modifications<br />
constitutionnelles affectant sa place au sein des institutions centrales ainsi que<br />
le droit de recevoir une pleine compensation financière dans tous les cas où il<br />
exercerait son droit de « désaccord » (ou droit de retrait) contre une<br />
modification constitutionnelle transférant une compétence provinciale au<br />
Parlement fédéral30. Si le « fédéralisme asymétrique » respectait ces conditions, il aurait pour effet à<br />
moyen et à long terme d’instaurer entre le Québec et le Canada anglais des<br />
relations de nature quasi confédérale, plutôt que fédérale. Le Parlement et le<br />
gouvernement canadiens pourraient en quelque sorte jouer deux rôles<br />
différents : celui d’institutions fédérales pour le Canada anglais, et celui<br />
d’institutions confédérales pour le nouvel ensemble formé par le Québec et le<br />
Canada. Le Québec et le Canada ne maintiendraient alors que le degré d’union<br />
politique nécessaire pour permettre le fonctionnement de l’union économique<br />
et monétaire et chacun d’eux pourrait poursuivre plus librement ses aspirations<br />
et développer davantage sa propre identité nationale. Il s’agirait en somme<br />
d’une forme de « souveraineté-association » avec la différence qu’elle serait<br />
négociée à partir de l’actuelle situation fédérale plutôt qu’après la séparation<br />
du Québec. C’est précisément pour cette raison qu’il est peu probable que le<br />
Canada anglais accepte cette solution à l’heure actuelle, craignant qu’elle ne<br />
constitue l’« antichambre du séparatisme ».<br />
Cependant, si la menace d’une séparation du Québec redevenait plus réelle, la<br />
solution du fédéralisme asymétrique pourrait gagner des adeptes au Canada<br />
anglais dans la mesure où elle serait alors l’unique solution de rechange à<br />
l’éclatement du Canada. En outre, le Canada anglais pourrait y trouver son<br />
compte en voyant ainsi diminuer l’influence, souvent considérée comme<br />
disproportionnée, du Québec en matière de politique fédérale. En effet, les<br />
Québécois ont tendance à voter massivement pour le même parti aux élections<br />
fédérales et décident donc souvent du résultat. Par conséquent, ils jouent<br />
également un rôle considérable au Cabinet fédéral. Comme on le sait, depuis<br />
30
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
une génération, le Premier ministre fédéral a toujours été un Québécois, sauf<br />
pendant deux brèves périodes de quelques mois. L’influence que le Québec<br />
exerce sur la politique fédérale est ainsi parfois supérieure à son poids<br />
démographique, ce qui provoque des ressentiments au Canada anglais.<br />
L’accession du Québec à la souveraineté — avec ou sans le consentement<br />
du Canada anglais<br />
Si le Québec décidait de devenir souverain, il pourrait en théorie y parvenir en<br />
utilisant la procédure de modification contenue dans la Loi constitutionnelle<br />
de 1982 à condition d’obtenir le consentement des autorités fédérales et d’un<br />
certain nombre d’autres provinces, ce qui semble peu vraisemblable31. Sice<br />
consentement lui était refusé, le Québec devrait alors s’engager dans un<br />
processus de sécession unilatérale. Une telle démarche devrait préalablement<br />
avoir été endossée par une majorité suffisante de la population québécoise, de<br />
préférence à l’occasion d’un référendum. Dans un premier temps, le Canada<br />
anglais refuserait probablement de reconnaître cette sécession illégale.<br />
Cependant, les pays ayant intérêt à la normalisation de la situation, notamment<br />
les États-Unis et la France, feraient presque certainement des pressions pour<br />
qu’Ottawa reconnaisse le nouvel État. À moyen et à long termes, si l’existence<br />
du Québec était reconnue par d’autres États et s’il était admis dans certaines<br />
organisations internationales, le Canada finirait probablement par trouver<br />
opportun de le reconnaître à son tour. À partir de ce moment, les deux<br />
gouvernements pourraient entamer les négociations relatives à la succession<br />
d’État et à toutes les autres questions restées en suspens au moment de la<br />
déclaration unilatérale d’indépendance.<br />
<strong>La</strong> sécession serait considérée comme réussie si, durant un laps de temps<br />
suffisamment long, les autorités québécoises parvenaient à exclure<br />
l’application du droit canadien sur leur territoire et, au contraire, réussissaient<br />
à y faire régner l’ordre juridique découlant de leurs propres lois et décisions. Le<br />
Québec devrait alors être considéré comme un nouvel État souverain.<br />
Si une éventuelle sécession unilatérale échouait, le Québec serait à nouveau<br />
réuni à la fédération canadienne et le problème de son intégrité territoriale se<br />
poserait dans le cadre de la <strong>Constitution</strong> du Canada. En vertu de celle-ci, le<br />
territoire d’une province ne peut être modifié sans le consentement de ses<br />
autorités législatives32. Si la sécession réussissait et que le Québec devenait un<br />
État souverain, le principe de l’intégrité territoriale des États et de la stabilité<br />
des frontières que pose le droit international (principe de l’uti possidetis juris)<br />
empêcherait les autres États, y compris le Canada, de porter atteinte au<br />
territoire québécois, si bien que les frontières du Québec seraient<br />
officiellement celles qui existaient au moment de son accession à la<br />
souveraineté.<br />
Cependant, une menace sérieuse contre l’intégrité territoriale du Québec<br />
pourrait résulter de l’attitude des peuples autochtones — Inuit et Amérindiens<br />
— qui habitent la partie septentrionale du Québec33. En effet, ces peuples, qui<br />
sont les premiers occupants de ces territoires, pourraient prétendre exercer leur<br />
propre droit à l’autodétermination afin de continuer à faire partie du Canada et<br />
de se séparer du Québec si celui-ci décidait de quitter la fédération canadienne.<br />
Sans doute, le Québec pourrait-il répondre, à juste titre, que certaines<br />
conditions requises pour l’autodétermination des peuples autochtones sur le<br />
plan international ne sont pas réunies, voire même qu’un tel droit n’existe<br />
tout simplement pas34. Il n’en reste pas moins que la cause des autochtones<br />
31
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
leur attirerait beaucoup de sympathie, tant au Canada qu’ailleurs dans le<br />
monde. En outre, les autorités fédérales trouveraient là une bonne raison pour<br />
affirmer le maintien de leur souveraineté sur le Nord québécois, la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> leur attribuant une responsabilité de fiduciaire à l’égard des<br />
peuples autochtones et ceux-ci considérant traditionnellement le<br />
gouvernement fédéral comme leur interlocuteur privilégié35. Comme le<br />
Canada dispose d’une armée, ce qui n’est pas le cas du Québec, le maintien de<br />
la souveraineté canadienne et l’exclusion de la souveraineté québécoise sur les<br />
territoires septentrionaux s’avéreraient aisés sur le plan militaire et, sur le plan<br />
juridique, finiraient par éteindre les droits du Québec par application du<br />
principe de l’effectivité (en vertu duquel l’exercice réel de la souveraineté est<br />
nécessaire pour conserver le titre juridique sur un territoire).<br />
Par conséquent, il apparaît que l’accession pacifique du Québec à la<br />
souveraineté, sans diminution de son assiette territoriale, serait beaucoup plus<br />
facile si elle était précédée d’un accord entre les autorités québécoises, les<br />
autorités fédérales et les peuples autochtones établis au Québec. Pour favoriser<br />
la conclusion d’une pareille entente, le Québec devrait dès maintenant<br />
s’engager à enchâsser dans une future constitution québécoise les droits des<br />
autochtones qui ne pourraient plus ensuite être modifiés qu’avec le<br />
consentement de ces derniers. Ces droit devraient être formulés, à tout le<br />
moins, de la même façon que dans l’actuelle <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne et, de<br />
préférence, plus clairement et plus généreusement en incluant notamment une<br />
certaine autonomie gouvernementale interne. Par ailleurs, les autochtones<br />
québécois craignent sans doute que l’accession du Québec à la souveraineté ne<br />
rende plus difficiles les contacts avec leurs frères et soeurs du Canada. Pour les<br />
rassurer sur ce point, l’accord tripartite entre le Québec, le Canada et les<br />
peuples autochtones pourrait prévoir la liberté de circulation des autochtones<br />
de part et d’autre de la nouvelle frontière. Un tel accord pourrait également<br />
consigner les droits des autochtones à l’égard des deux États signataires et<br />
confier à un organisme mixte canado-québécois le soin d’entendre et de<br />
trancher les litiges futurs pouvant s’élever entre le Québec ou le Canada, d’une<br />
part, et leurs peuples autochtones, d’autre part. Cela permettrait sans doute<br />
d’améliorer les rapports difficiles qui existent actuellement entre ces peuples<br />
et les deux ordres de gouvernement.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Depuis plus de trente ans, tous les gouvernements québécois, de quelque parti<br />
qu’ils soient, ont tenté d’obtenir pour le Québec les nouveaux pouvoirs<br />
considérés comme nécessaires afin de lui permettre de se développer en tant<br />
que société nationale distincte. Non seulement ces revendications n’ont eu<br />
aucun succès, mais elles se sont heurtées à une évolution en sens inverse au<br />
Canada anglais, où l’on privilégie de plus en plus l’augmentation du rôle et des<br />
pouvoirs d’Ottawa. Cet affrontement entre les aspirations du Québec et celles<br />
du reste du Canada s’est soldé, dans la dernière décennie, par une double<br />
défaite pour le Québec. <strong>La</strong> première est survenue en 1982 lorsque la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> a été « rapatriée » et modifiée contre la volonté du gouvernement<br />
de René Lévesque et la seconde, en 1990, avec l’échec de l’Accord du lac<br />
Meech, qui consacrait pourtant une réduction draconienne des dem<strong>and</strong>es<br />
traditionnelles du Québec, réduction à laquelle le gouvernement de M. Robert<br />
Bourassa avait consentie.<br />
Ces échecs répétés expliquent que les Québécois, malgré l’attachement réel<br />
que beaucoup d’entre eux continuent d’éprouver pour le Canada, rejettent<br />
32
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
désormais de façon très majoritaire le statu quo constitutionnel et, a fortiori,la<br />
tendance du Canada anglais vers une plus gr<strong>and</strong>e centralisation. L’opinion<br />
publique québécoise reste cependant hésitante dans la mesure où elle se divise,<br />
dans une proportion variable selon les sondages, entre les partisans d’un<br />
renouvellement du système fédéral et ceux de la souveraineté du Québec36.En outre, la très gr<strong>and</strong>e majorité des « souverainistes » insistait sur le maintien de<br />
l’union économique et monétaire entre le Canada et un futur Québec<br />
indépendant. Il est cependant loin d’être clair quel degré d’union politique doit<br />
être considéré comme nécessaire pour permettre le maintien de l’intégration<br />
économique à son niveau actuel. Ceux qui prônent le statu quo ou le<br />
« fédéralisme renouvelé » estiment que seules des institutions véritablement<br />
fédérales permettraient d’arriver à ce résultat alors que les tenants de la<br />
souveraineté politique du Québec — combinée avec le maintien de<br />
l’association économique avec le Canada — pensent, au contraire, qu’il<br />
suffirait pour y parvenir d’institutions de nature mixte, partiellement fédérales<br />
et partiellement confédérales, comme celles qui caractérisent actuellement la<br />
Communauté économique européenne37. Cette dernière thèse serait<br />
évidemment confirmée si l’on pouvait démontrer que le degré d’intégration<br />
économique qui unit les États de la C.E.E. est comparable à celui qui existe au<br />
Canada. De façon plutôt ironique, c’est précisément ce que prétendent de<br />
nombreux tenants du maintien du système fédéral en voulant ainsi prouver que<br />
la souveraineté du Québec irait contre le « sens de l’histoire ». Comble du<br />
paradoxe, certains promoteurs d’un système fédéral plus centralisé vont<br />
jusqu’à prétendre que l’union économique constituée par la C.E.E. est d’ores<br />
et déjà plus parfaite que celle qui existe entre les provinces canadiennes,<br />
cherchant ainsi à démontrer qu’il est nécessaire d’éliminer les barrières<br />
économiques entre celles-ci en conférant davantage de pouvoirs dans ce<br />
domaine au gouvernement central.<br />
En fait, une comparaison moins polémique entre la situation canadoquébécoise<br />
et celle de l’Europe permet de souligner que les Européens<br />
semblent actuellement tout aussi hésitants à renforcer l’union politique qui<br />
existe déjà entre leurs pays que les Québécois le sont à diminuer les liens qui<br />
les unissent au reste du Canada. C’est que ni les uns ni les autres n’échappent<br />
aux deux gr<strong>and</strong>s courants qui caractérisent l’évolution du monde en cette fin<br />
du XXe siècle, à savoir l’élargissement des espaces économiques, d’une part,<br />
et l’affirmation, ou la réaffirmation, des identités nationales d’autre part38. Ces<br />
deux tendances sont évidemment liées dans la mesure où les menaces<br />
d’homogénéisation qui accompagnent l’unification économique provoquent<br />
en réaction la défense des spécificités nationales menacées. Mais les deux<br />
mouvements sont probablement moins contradictoires qu’il n’y paraît à<br />
première vue. En effet, l’appartenance à un espace économique qui dépasse les<br />
frontières nationales n’est pas incompatible avec le maintien — ou, dans le cas<br />
du Québec, l’élargissement — de la souveraineté politique dans les domaines<br />
où existent des spécificités importantes qui distinguent les communautés<br />
nationales les unes des autres.<br />
On peut donc espérer qu’à plus long terme, la raison prévaudra et que le<br />
Québec et le reste du Canada réussiront à réaménager leurs relations de façon<br />
mutuellement bénéfique et satisfaisante. Le sens démocratique du Canada<br />
anglais devrait faire en sorte que cette transformation se produise de façon<br />
pacifique, le Québec se voyant reconnaître le droit de décider de son avenir<br />
sans être soumis à des menaces de représailles économiques, voire de<br />
diminution de son territoire. Ainsi, c’est aux Québécois eux-mêmes que<br />
33
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
reviendra le dernier mot à condition qu’ils réussissent à faire preuve d’une<br />
volonté inébranlable et clairement exprimée. Après l’échec de l’Accord de<br />
Charlottetown, la lassitude de l’opinion à l’égard des questions<br />
constitutionnelles poussera vraisemblablement le Canada anglais à refuser<br />
pendant un temps plus ou moins long toutes nouvelles négociations, ce qui<br />
pourrait avoir pour effet de faire augmenter les appuis à la souveraineté au<br />
Québec. Cependant, comme on l’a mentionné, dans la mesure où de nombreux<br />
Québécois sont encore attachés au système fédéral et où la plupart d’entre eux<br />
insistent sur le maintien de l’espace économique avec le reste du Canada, il est<br />
douteux que l’accession à la souveraineté par le biais d’une séparation pure et<br />
simple, sans union économique et monétaire négociée d’avance, puisse<br />
l’emporter dans un avenir prévisible. <strong>La</strong> véritable échéance sera, semble-t-il,<br />
de nouveau reportée.<br />
Notes<br />
* Une version plus détaillée du présent article a été publiée dans l’ouvrage suivant :«<strong>La</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne et l’évolution des rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais, de<br />
1867 à nos jours », Edmonton, Centre for <strong>Constitution</strong>al Studies (University of Alberta),<br />
1993. En outre, le présent article reproduit les pages 543 à 553 du texte de l’auteur intitulé<br />
« L’évolution constitutionnelle du Canada et du Québec de 1867 à nos jours » qui a paru dans<br />
Les <strong>Constitution</strong>s du Canada et du Québec, du Régime français à nos jours, Éditions<br />
Thémis, Montréal, 1992. L’auteur remercie les deux éditeurs pour la permission de<br />
reproduire les extraits que reprend le présent article.<br />
1. <strong>La</strong> seule différence tient à ce que les projets de lois de nature financière doivent être d’abord<br />
déposés aux Communes, conformément à l’article 53 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867,<br />
L.R.C. (1985), app. II, n o 5, alors que les autres projets peuvent émaner indifféremment de<br />
l’une ou l’autre des deux Chambres. Cependant, avant d’être présenté pour la sanction<br />
royale, un projet de loi sur la finance, comme tout autre projet de loi, doit nécessairement<br />
avoir été adopté dans les mêmes termes par les deux Chambres.<br />
2. <strong>La</strong> répartition actuelle des cent quatre sièges du Sénat est la suivante : Ontario et Québec,<br />
vingt-quatre chacun; Nouveau-Brunswick et Nouvelle-Écosse, dix chacun; Île-du-Prince-<br />
Édouard, quatre; Colombie-Britannique, Alberta, Saskatchewan et Manitoba, six chacun;<br />
Terre-Neuve, six; Yukon et Territoires du Nord-Ouest, un chacun.<br />
3. Pour une étude plus systématique des problèmes soulevés par la réforme du Sénat, voir José<br />
Woehrling, « Les enjeux de la réforme du Sénat canadien », (1992) 23, Revue générale de<br />
droit, 81.<br />
4. Conformément à l’article 6 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, L.R.C. (1985), c. S-26, au moins<br />
trois des neuf juges sont choisis parmi les juges de la Cour d’appel ou de la Cour supérieure<br />
de la province du Québec ou parmi les avocats de celle-ci; l’Accord du lac Meech prévoyait<br />
également la constitutionnalisation de cette règle.<br />
5. Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, art. 95.<br />
6. Sur le pouvoir de dépenser du gouvernement fédéral, voir Jacques-Yvan Morin et José<br />
Woehrling, Les <strong>Constitution</strong>s du Canada et du Québec. Du Régime français à nos jours,<br />
Montréal, Éditions Thémis, 1992, pp. 360 et suiv.<br />
7. Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, L.R.C. (1985), app. II, n o 44, art. 41(e). <strong>La</strong> procédure de<br />
modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne est prévue aux articles 38 à 49 de la Loi<br />
constitutionnelle de 1982. Dans certains cas, l’accord des dix provinces et du Parlement<br />
fédéral est nécessaire; dans d’autres, celui du Parlement fédéral et de toutes les provinces<br />
intéressées par la modification suffit; enfin, la procédure la plus courante exige l’accord du<br />
Parlement fédéral et d’au moins deux tiers des provinces (c’est-à-dire sept sur dix) dont la<br />
population confondue représente au moins la moitié de la population de toutes les provinces.<br />
Par ailleurs, certaines modifications qui visent la constitution interne d’une province<br />
peuvent être faites par la législature de la province intéressée et d’autres, relatives au<br />
fonctionnement des organes fédéraux, par les deux Chambres du Parlement fédéral. Pour<br />
une analyse systématique du mécanisme de la procédure de modification constitutionnelle,<br />
voir J.-Y. Morin et J. Woehrling, op. cit., note 6, pp. 487 et suiv.<br />
34
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
8. Pour une analyse plus développée de l’incidence de l’Accord du lac Meech sur les droits et<br />
libertés garantis par la <strong>Constitution</strong> du Canada, voir José Woehrling, « <strong>La</strong> modification<br />
constitutionnelle de 1987, la reconnaissance du Québec comme société distincte et la dualité<br />
linguistique du Canada », (1988) 29, Cahiers de droit, 3; José Woehrling, « <strong>La</strong><br />
reconnaissance du Québec comme société distincte et la dualité linguistique du Canada :<br />
conséquences juridiques et constitutionnelles » dans <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord—L’Accord du<br />
lac Meech, numéro spécial de Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de politiques, septembre<br />
1988, p. 43; José Woehrling, « L’Accord du lac Meech et l’application de la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
canadienne des droits et libertés », dans Gérald-A. Beaudoin (dir.), Vues canadiennes et<br />
européennes des droits et libertés (Actes des journées strasbourgeoises de l’Institut canadien<br />
d’études juridiques supérieures — 1988), Cowansville, Éditions Y. Blais, 1989, p. 377; José<br />
Woehrling, « A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Distinct Society Clause’s Critics » dans Michael D. Behiels<br />
(dir.), <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Primer : Conflicting Views of <strong>the</strong> 1987 <strong>Constitution</strong>al Accord,<br />
Ottawa, University of Ottawa Press, 1989, p. 171; José Woehrling, « Les droits linguistiques<br />
des minorités et le projet de modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong> du Canada (l’Accord du lac<br />
Meech) » dans Paul Pupier et José Woehrling, <strong>La</strong>ngue et droit (Actes du premier congrès de<br />
l’Institut international de droit linguistique comparé), Montréal, Wilson et <strong>La</strong>fleur, 1989, p.<br />
291.<br />
9. En fait, la législature du Nouveau-Brunswick finit par adopter, quelques jours avant la date<br />
limite du 23 juin 1990, la résolution d’agrément nécessaire pour ratifier l’Accord du lac<br />
Meech. Si celui-ci échoua en fin de compte, ce fut donc à cause de l’absence de ratification<br />
par les législatures du Manitoba et de Terre-Neuve. Pour plus de détails sur les péripéties de<br />
l’échec de l’Accord du lac Meech, voir J.-Y. Morin et J. Woehrling, op. cit., note 6, pp. 553 et<br />
suiv.; José Woehrling, « L’échec de l’Accord du lac Meech et l’avenir constitutionnel du<br />
Canada » dans Le Canada au seuil du 21ème siècle : réflexions européennes sur l’avenir du<br />
Canada/Canada on <strong>the</strong> Treshold of <strong>the</strong> 21st Century : European Reflexions upon <strong>the</strong> Future<br />
of Canada (Communications présentées à la première conférence paneuropéenne d’études<br />
canadiennes, <strong>La</strong> Haye, Pays-Bas, 24-27 octobre 1991), Amsterdam/Philadelphie, John<br />
Benjamins Publishing Co., 1991, p. 383; José Woehrling, « <strong>La</strong> tentative de modification<br />
constitutionnelle de 1987: la reconnaissance du Québec comme société distincte et la dualité<br />
linguistique du Canada », (1990) 39, Jahrbuch des Öffentliches Rechts, 537.<br />
10. L’article 43 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 permet de modifier les dispositions de la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> qui n’intéressent qu’une seule province par accord entre les autorités fédérales<br />
et celles de la province intéressée.<br />
11. Ces six provinces sont le Manitoba, la Saskatchewan, le Nouveau-Brunswick, la Nouvelle-<br />
Écosse, l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard et Terre-Neuve. Le Québec bénéficie également des<br />
paiements de péréquation, mais il en est moins dépendant que les six autres provinces.<br />
L’Ontario, l’Alberta et la Colombie-Britannique ont des revenus supérieurs à la moyenne<br />
nationale et ne bénéficient donc pas de la péréquation.<br />
12. Sur les effets potentiellement uniformisateurs de la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits et libertés,<br />
en particulier les dispositions relatives à l’égalité et à la non-discrimination, voir José<br />
Woehrling, « Le principe d’égalité, le système fédéral canadien et le caractère distinct du<br />
Québec », dans Pierre Patenaude (dir.), Québec—Communauté française de Belgique :<br />
autonomie et spécificité dans le cadre d’un système fédéral (Actes du colloque tenu le 22<br />
mars 1991, Faculté de droit, Université de Sherbrooke), Montréal, Wilson et <strong>La</strong>fleur, 1991,<br />
p. 119. Un certain nombre de constitutionnalistes ont prédit que l’application de la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
canadienne des droits et libertés entraînera des effets uniformisateurs, principalement sur le<br />
droit d’origine provinciale; voir par exemple, R.R. Knopff et F.L. Morton, « Le<br />
développement national et la <strong>Charte</strong> » dans A. Cairns et C. Williams (dir.), Le<br />
constitutionnalisme, la citoyenneté et la société au Canada (vol. 33 des études comm<strong>and</strong>ées<br />
dans le cadre du progamme de recherche de la Commission royale sur l’union économique et<br />
les perspectives de développement du Canada, Ottawa, Centre d’édition du gouvernement<br />
du Canada, 1986; P.H. Russell, « <strong>The</strong> Political Purposes of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
<strong>and</strong> Freedoms », (1983) 61, Revue du Barreau canadien 31; A. Cairns, « <strong>The</strong> Politics of<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Conservatism », dans K. Banting et R. Simeon (dir.), And No One Cheered:<br />
<strong>Federalism</strong>, Democracy <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, Toronto, Methuen, 1983, p. 28. Les<br />
professeurs Knopff et Morton et le professeur Russell considèrent même que l’objectif caché<br />
du gouvernement fédéral de M. Trudeau en faisant adopter la <strong>Charte</strong>, était précisément de<br />
35
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
provoquer une centralisation indirecte des pouvoirs qui résulterait de l’interprétation<br />
judiciaire : P.H. Russell, loc. cit., 32 et 33; R.R. Knopff et F.L. Morton, op. cit., pp. 153 et<br />
154.<br />
13. Sur les différences d’attitude à l’égard de la <strong>Charte</strong> au Québec et dans le reste du Canada,<br />
voir notamment F.L. Morton, Peter H. Russell et Michael J. Wi<strong>the</strong>y, « <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court’s<br />
First One Hundred <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights Decisions: A Statistical Analysis », (1992) 30,<br />
Osgoode Hall <strong>La</strong>w Journal, 1, 31-33 et 48.<br />
14. On peut également faire remarquer que la « rhétorique » des droits et libertés confère un<br />
caractère absolu et non débattable à des questions qui sont pourtant traditionnellement<br />
considérées comme pouvant faire l’objet de divergences légitimes entre personnes<br />
raisonnables. Ainsi, par exemple, si l’on présente la question de l’ouverture des commerces<br />
le dimanche comme un problème de politique économique et sociale ordinaire, il est évident<br />
qu’aucune solution uniforme ne s’impose d’une province à l’autre étant donné que les<br />
conditions objectives et les mentalités peuvent varier gr<strong>and</strong>ement à propos d’un tel<br />
problème. Si l’on présente la même question comme une affaire de liberté de religion, il<br />
semble nécessaire d’adopter une solution universelle et impérative, car il est difficile<br />
d’admettre que la liberté de religion soit moindre dans certaines provinces que dans d’autres.<br />
Sur la tendance à interpréter les droits de la personne de façon universaliste et, par<br />
conséquent, uniformisatrice, voir, par exemple, J. Donnely, « Cultural Relativism <strong>and</strong><br />
Universal Human Rights », (1984) 6, Human Rights Quarterly 400; A.D. Renteln, « <strong>The</strong><br />
Unanswered Challenge of Relativism <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Consequences for Human Rights », (1985),<br />
Human Rights Quarterly, 514; R.R. Knopff et F.L. Morton, op. cit., note 12, pp. 164 et 165;<br />
K.E. Swinton, <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court <strong>and</strong> Canadian <strong>Federalism</strong>: <strong>The</strong> <strong>La</strong>skin-Dickson Years,<br />
Toronto, Carswell, 1990, pp. 338 et suiv.<br />
15. <strong>Charte</strong> des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q. c. C-12.<br />
16. Avant d’être constitutionnalisée, la <strong>Charte</strong> québécoise devrait cependant subir certaines<br />
modifications, notamment pour limiter le pouvoir de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec de<br />
déroger aux droits et libertés. Pour certaines propositions en ce sens, voir José Woehrling,<br />
« <strong>La</strong> protection des droits et libertés et le sort des minorités », dans Alain-G. Gagnon et<br />
François Rocher (dir.), Répliques aux détracteurs de la souveraineté du Québec, Montréal,<br />
VLB éditeur, 1992, p. 131, pp. 156-161.<br />
17. Sur l’évolution des groupes linguistiques, voir Kenneth McRoberts, English Canada <strong>and</strong><br />
Quebec—Avoiding <strong>the</strong> Issue, York University Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, 1991,<br />
pp. 13-14 et 20-21; Réjean <strong>La</strong>chapelle, « Évolution des groupes linguistiques et situation des<br />
langues officielles au Canada », dans Tendances démolinguistiques et évolution des<br />
institutions canadiennes, (Communications présentées lors d’un colloque tenu à Hull le 10<br />
février 1989), numéro spécial de la collection « Thèmes canadiens » de l’Association<br />
d’études canadiennes, Montréal, 1989, p. 7.<br />
18. On pourrait ajouter que le principe du multiculturalisme qui présuppose une certaine égalité<br />
de toutes les cultures s’oppose également aux notions de « dualité linguistique » et de « deux<br />
peuples fondateurs ».<br />
19. Sur ce point, voir notamment Simon <strong>La</strong>nglois, « Le choc de deux sociétés globales », dans<br />
Louis Balthazar, Guy <strong>La</strong>forest et Vincent Lemieux, Le Québec et la restructuration du<br />
Canada, 1980-1992, Sillery (Québec), Éditions du Septentrion, 1991, p. 95.<br />
20. Rapport de la Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec, Québec, mars<br />
1991, 180 pages.<br />
21. L.Q. 1991, c. 34.<br />
22. Bâtir ensemble le Canada—Propositions, Ottawa, Approvisionnements et Services Canada,<br />
1991, 60 p. Pour une analyse de ces propositions, voir J.-Y. Morin et J. Woehrling, op. cit,<br />
note 6, pp. 564-571.<br />
23. Un Canada renouvelé, Rapport du Comité mixte spécial du Sénat et de la Chambre des<br />
communes sur le renouvellement du Canada (Coprésidents : Gérald Beaudoin et Dorothy<br />
Dobie), Ottawa, Approvisionnements et Services Canada, 1992. Pour une analyse des<br />
recomm<strong>and</strong>ations du comité, voir Peter H. Russell, <strong>Constitution</strong>al Odyssey. Can Canadians<br />
Become a Sovereign People?, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1992, pp. 181-189.<br />
24. En septembre 1992, la Loi sur le processus de détermination de l’avenir politique et<br />
constitutionnel du Québec, précitée, note 21, avait été modifiée pour permettre la tenue d’un<br />
36
<strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle et le réaménagement des<br />
rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais<br />
référendum sur l’entente constitutionnelle du 28 août 1992 plutôt que sur l’accession du<br />
Québec à la souveraineté.<br />
25. Il était prévu que les lois autochtones ne pourraient pas être incompatibles « avec les lois<br />
fédérales ou provinciales essentielles au maintien de la paix, de l’ordre et du bon<br />
gouvernement du Canada ». Cette expression n’ayant aucune signification connue dans un<br />
tel contexte, il était impossible de savoir d’avance avec quelles lois fédérales ou provinciales<br />
au juste les lois autochtones devaient être compatibles.<br />
26. Cela impliquerait évidemment de modifier les règles de mise en jeu de la responsabilité<br />
ministérielle.<br />
27. Voir, par exemple Alan C. Cairns, « <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Three Equalities », dans<br />
Ronald L. Watts et Douglas M. Brown, Options for a New Canada, Toronto, University of<br />
Toronto Press, 1991, p. 77; Tom Kent, « Une asymétrie viable et équitable », Le Réseau<br />
(Bulletin du Réseau sur la <strong>Constitution</strong>), vol. 2, n o 3, mars 1992, p. 4; K. McRoberts, op. cit.,<br />
note 17, pp. 44-46.<br />
28. En 1985, le gouvernement du Québec, alors dirigé par le Parti québécois, avait indiqué ses<br />
conditions pour adhérer à la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Dans le domaine du<br />
réaménagement des pouvoirs, il voulait avoir la main haute sur tout le secteur de la maind’oeuvre;<br />
exigeait d’être responsable au premier chef de l’orientation générale de son<br />
développement économique, y compris celui de ses régions; réclamait une compétence<br />
prépondérante en matière de sélection et d’établissement des immigrants ainsi qu’un<br />
accroissement important de ses pouvoirs en matière de télécommunications; ne revendiquait<br />
une compétence exclusive en matière de mariage et de divorce et, enfin, que soit reconnue,<br />
en matière internationale, la situation spécifique du Québec en tout ce qui touche à ses<br />
compétences et à son identité, notamment dans le cadre de la Francophonie. Voir Projet<br />
d’accord constitutionnel : propositions du Gouvernement du Québec, mai 1985, pp. 26-30.<br />
29. En fait, on peut se dem<strong>and</strong>er si la réforme du Sénat ne deviendrait pas inutile. En effet, le<br />
retrait des votes des 75 députés québécois à la Chambre des communes sur certaines<br />
questions importantes augmenterait considérablement le poids relatif des députés de<br />
l’Ouest, des provinces de l’Atlantique, du Yukon et des Territoires du Nord-Ouest qui<br />
compteraient alors un total de 121 voix par opposition à l’Ontario qui en aurait 99. Les<br />
régions « périphériques » obtiendraient donc, dans les cas où les députés québécois ne<br />
votent pas, la majorité des voix, ce qui satisferait leur désir d’exercer une plus gr<strong>and</strong>e<br />
influence au sein des institutions fédérales. Elles pourraient par conséquent ab<strong>and</strong>onner<br />
leurs exigences en ce qui concerne la réforme du Sénat sur le modèle « Triple E ». Sur cette<br />
question, voir Gordon <strong>La</strong>xer, « Un statut radicalement distinct pour le Québec », Le Devoir,<br />
Montréal, 28 décembre 1991, p. B-12.<br />
30. À l’heure actuelle, l’article 40 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ne prévoit de<br />
compensation financière que dans le seul cas où une province exerce son droit de retrait<br />
contre un amendement constitutionnel transférant au Parlement fédéral la compétence<br />
législative provinciale « en matière d’éducation ou dans d’autres domaines culturels ».<br />
31. Aucune disposition de la Partie V de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ne prévoit<br />
expressément la sécession d’une province. Le pouvoir de modification constitutionnelle de<br />
la législature provinciale ne permet manifestement pas à celle-ci de réaliser la sécession de la<br />
province par simple loi provinciale. L’article 43, qui vise les modifications qui ne<br />
concernent que certaines provinces, ne permettrait pas davantage de réaliser la sécession<br />
d’une province par accord entre les autorités fédérales et celles de la province en cause. En<br />
effet, la sécession d’une province affecterait un gr<strong>and</strong> nombre de dispositions<br />
constitutionnelles qui concernent également d’autres provinces. Enfin, de toute évidence, le<br />
pouvoir de modification constitutionnelle du Parlement fédéral, prévu à l’article 44,<br />
n’autorise pas celui-ci à opérer la sécession d’une province. Par conséquent, seules la<br />
procédure de l’unanimité de l’article 41 et celle de la majorité des deux tiers de l’article 38<br />
restent à envisager. L’une de ces deux modalités doit forcément permettre la sécession d’une<br />
province étant donné que toute la <strong>Constitution</strong> du Canada peut être modifiée conformément<br />
aux pouvoirs conférés par elle. Pour plus de détails sur cette question, voir José Woehrling,<br />
« Les aspects juridiques de la redéfinition du statut politique et constitutionnel du Québec »<br />
dans Éléments d’analyse institutionnelle, juridique et démolinguistique pertinents à la<br />
révision du statut politique et constitutionnel du Québec, Commission sur l’avenir politique<br />
37
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
et constitutionnel du Québec, Document de travail n o 2, 1991, p. 1, aux pp. 57-58 [texte<br />
également reproduit dans (1991-1992) 7, Revue québécoise de droit international, 12].<br />
32. Loi constitutionnelle de 1871, L.R.C. (1985), app. II, n o 11, art. 3; Loi constitutionnelle de<br />
1982, art. 43.<br />
33. Quelque 60 000 Amérindiens et Inuit, répartis en onze nations, vivent au Québec, dont 18<br />
000 appartenant aux communautés crie et inuit dans la partie septentrionale du territoire<br />
québécois.<br />
34. Les peuples autochtones, qu’ils soient établis dans le Nord québécois ou dans la partie<br />
méridionale du territoire, ne sont pas en nombre suffisant pour remplir les conditions exigées<br />
par le droit international pour l’exercice du droit à l’autodétermination externe. Quant à la<br />
communauté anglophone, concentrée principalement à Montréal, son autodétermination<br />
externe serait impraticable dans la mesure où elle nécessiterait la création d’enclaves au sein<br />
du territoire québécois. Certains vont même plus loin et affirment qu’en vertu du droit<br />
international, les peuples autochtones et les minorités ne disposent jamais, peu important les<br />
circonstances, du droit à l’autodétermination externe; cette thèse est défendue dans un avis<br />
juridique émis par cinq spécialistes de réputation internationale appartenant respectivement<br />
aux universités de New York (New York University), Londres (London School of<br />
Economics), Paris (Institut d’études politiques), Leicester (Gr<strong>and</strong>e-Bretagne) et Bonn<br />
(Allemagne); voir Thomas Franck, Rosalyn Higgins, Alain Pellet, Malcolm N. Shaw et<br />
Christian Tomuschat, « L’intégrité territoriale du Québec dans l’hypothèse de l’accession à<br />
la souveraineté », Assemblée nationale du Québec, Commission d’étude des questions<br />
afférentes à l’accession du Québec à la souveraineté, Exposés et études, volume 1 (« Les<br />
attributs d’un Québec souverain »), 1992, p. 377 aux pp. 430-443.<br />
35. En vertu de l’article 91(24) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, le Parlement fédéral est<br />
exclusivement compétent pour légiférer sur « les Indiens et les terres réservées aux Indiens ».<br />
36. Selon un sondage CROP publié par le journal <strong>La</strong> Presse, le 30 mars 1992, à la question<br />
« Voulez-vous que le Québec devienne un État souverain ? », 42 p. 100 répondaient oui et 39<br />
p. 100 disaient non, 20 p. 100 restant indécis; la marge d’erreur était de 3 p. 100. Par ailleurs,<br />
de nombreux répondants semblent avoir baigné dans la confusion, puisque 55 p. 100 d’entre<br />
eux croyaient qu’un Québec souverain continuerait à faire partie du Canada, 40 p. 100<br />
pensaient qu’advenant la souveraineté du Québec, ils pourraient néanmoins conserver la<br />
nationalité canadienne et 20 p. 100 s’imaginaient qu’ils continueraient d’élire des députés à<br />
la Chambre des communes d’Ottawa; voir Denis Lessard, « Un Québec souverain ferait<br />
toujours partie du Canada », <strong>La</strong> Presse, p. A-12.<br />
37. Une confédération est un groupement d’États habituellement établi par un traité<br />
international où les membres possèdent le droit de sécession et conservent leur souveraineté,<br />
c’est-à-dire participent chacun directement aux relations internationales. Les organes<br />
confédéraux sont composés de représentants des États membres nommés par les<br />
gouvernements de ceux-ci, en nombre généralement égal pour chaque État; ils prennent<br />
normalement les décisions à l’unanimité, chacun des États membres disposant donc d’un<br />
veto. Les décisions confédérales doivent parfois être approuvées par les États membres et<br />
leur exécution relève habituellement de ces derniers étant donné qu’il n’existe ni<br />
administration ni force publique confédérale. Il peut exister des modèles mixtes présentant à<br />
des degrés divers des caractéristiques fédérales et confédérales. <strong>La</strong> Communauté<br />
économique européenne (l’Europe des douze) constitue actuellement un tel système<br />
complexe qui présente certaines caractéristiques fédérales (par exemple, la primauté et<br />
l’applicabilité directe du droit communautaire dans les ordres juridiques des États membres)<br />
et d’autres qui sont plutôt confédérales (par exemple, la règle de l’unanimité pour certaines<br />
décisions du <strong>Conseil</strong> des ministres).<br />
38. Sur le dilemne de l’affirmation et de l’unification, de la diversité et de l’homogénéisation<br />
auquel font actuellement face les pays membres de la Communauté économique<br />
européenne, voir notamment Dominique Schnapper et Henri Mendras (dir.), Six manières<br />
d’être européen, Paris, Éditions Gallimard, 1990.<br />
38
Peter H. Russell<br />
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in<br />
Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada: <strong>The</strong> Politics of Frustration<br />
Abstract<br />
Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada st<strong>and</strong> out among <strong>the</strong> more settled constitutional<br />
democracies in <strong>the</strong> largely fruitless efforts of <strong>the</strong>ir political elites at gr<strong>and</strong><br />
constitutional restructuring. Both countries may now experience a prolonged<br />
respite from <strong>the</strong>se macro constitutional frustrations—in Australia, through<br />
<strong>La</strong>bour’s ab<strong>and</strong>oning its ideological drive for centralization <strong>and</strong> in Canada,<br />
by <strong>the</strong> realization that cleavages in <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> political community are<br />
too deep to provide <strong>the</strong> basis for a popular consensus on its constitutional<br />
restructuring. Nei<strong>the</strong>r country has found an effective way of combining<br />
constitutional negotiations, which are inescapably elitist, with a democratic<br />
ratifying process. While <strong>the</strong> two countries have influenced each o<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
constitutional reform efforts have been much more profoundly shaped, in<br />
terms of both ideas <strong>and</strong> economics, by global factors.<br />
Résumé<br />
Parmi les démocraties constitutionnelles les mieux établies, l’Australie et le<br />
Canada remportent la palme pour ce qui est des efforts infructueux de leurs<br />
élites politiques pour réviser de fond en comble leur <strong>Constitution</strong>. Dans<br />
l’immédiat, l’un et l’autre pays vont vraisemblablement s’accorder un sérieux<br />
répit pour oublier leurs frustrations respectives — le Parti travailliste<br />
australien mettra sûrement en veilleuse sa volonté de centralisation, alors que<br />
le Canada devra accepter l’évidence que les clivages politiques sont trop<br />
profonds pour qu’un consensus suffisamment large puisse se faire autour de sa<br />
réforme constitutionnelle. Aucun de ces deux pays n’a trouvé une façon<br />
efficace d’associer les négociations constitutionnelles — élitistes par<br />
définition — à un processus de ratification par le peuple. S’il est vrai que ces<br />
pays se sont mutuellement influencés, ce sont des facteurs globaux de<br />
caractère idéologique et économique qui ont le plus profondément marqué<br />
leurs tentatives de réforme.<br />
Among <strong>the</strong> western constitutional democracies, Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada st<strong>and</strong><br />
out in <strong>the</strong>ir prolonged efforts at macro constitutional change. In both countries,<br />
a good deal of constitutional change has taken place through <strong>the</strong> normal<br />
processes of constitutional development: judicial decisions, informal changes<br />
in <strong>the</strong> exercise of constitutional powers (such as fiscal federalism) <strong>and</strong><br />
piecemeal reform through discrete constitutional amendments. But in both<br />
countries, influential components of <strong>the</strong> political system have been dissatisfied<br />
with <strong>the</strong>se regular forms of constitutional adaptation <strong>and</strong> have pressed for<br />
major constitutional re-structuring. <strong>The</strong>se efforts at what I call “macro<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
constitutional change” have produced very little by way of concrete results.<br />
Hence, I have dubbed <strong>the</strong>m “<strong>the</strong> politics of frustration.” 1<br />
This article is a comparative examination of <strong>the</strong> experience of <strong>the</strong>se two<br />
kindred federations in <strong>the</strong> frustrating politics of macro constitutional change.<br />
<strong>The</strong> first part will provide accounts of <strong>the</strong> main developments in <strong>the</strong> two<br />
countries’ involvement in constitutional politics, concentrating on <strong>the</strong> most<br />
recent episodes. <strong>The</strong> second part will offer some reflections on what might be<br />
learned from a comparative analysis of <strong>the</strong> two countries’ experience with <strong>the</strong><br />
politics of frustration.<br />
Efforts at Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change<br />
Earlier Efforts<br />
Agitation for large constitutional restructuring by leading politicians in both<br />
federations began fairly soon after <strong>the</strong>ir founding. <strong>The</strong> first major Australian<br />
effort was <strong>the</strong> Peden Royal Commission in 1927 consisting of federal <strong>and</strong> state<br />
parliamentarians along with some prominent citizens <strong>and</strong> constitutional<br />
experts (Russell, 1988). <strong>The</strong> Commission’s report, issued in 1929, found its<br />
members divided four to three on <strong>the</strong> fundamental question of whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Australia should continue as a federation. That was followed by<br />
intergovernmental conferences during <strong>the</strong> depression <strong>and</strong> war years that<br />
endeavoured to negotiate overall changes in <strong>the</strong> structure of <strong>the</strong> federation<br />
(Sawer, 1963). In 1956, <strong>the</strong> Commonwealth Parliament struck a Joint<br />
Committee on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Revision whose final report in 1959 endorsed a<br />
wide-ranging package of constitutional proposals (Australia, Joint<br />
Committee, 1959). From 1973 to 1985, <strong>the</strong> Australian <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Convention laboured away on a total review of all aspects of Australia’s<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>. <strong>The</strong> Convention was, in effect, a peripatetic constituent<br />
assembly made up of Commonwealth, State <strong>and</strong> municipal politicians. Over<br />
its twelve year lifespan, it met six times — once in each of <strong>the</strong> State capitals. It<br />
had its own secretariat, was assisted by expert committees <strong>and</strong> issued<br />
voluminous reports (Ryan <strong>and</strong> Hewitt, 1977; Russell, 1988).<br />
In Canada, while <strong>the</strong>re were tentative moves in <strong>the</strong> direction of macro<br />
constitutional change in <strong>the</strong> inter-provincial meeting of 1887 <strong>and</strong> again in <strong>the</strong><br />
work of <strong>the</strong> Rowell Sirois Commission at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> 1930s, <strong>the</strong> effort was<br />
not engaged in earnest until <strong>the</strong> 1960s when Quebec’s “quiet revolution”<br />
generated a dem<strong>and</strong> for a fundamental constitutional restructuring (Russell,<br />
1992). <strong>The</strong> first response to Quebec’s dem<strong>and</strong>s was a series of<br />
intergovernmental conferences culminating in 1971 in a package of<br />
constitutional proposals called <strong>the</strong> Victoria <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong> 1970s witnessed a<br />
number of efforts at macro constitutional change beginning with a Joint<br />
Committee of <strong>the</strong> federal Parliament (<strong>the</strong> Molgat/ MacGuigan Committee)<br />
that made over one hundred recommendations for constitutional change<br />
(Canada. Joint Committee, 1972). Following <strong>the</strong> election of a separatist<br />
government in Quebec in 1976, <strong>the</strong>re was ano<strong>the</strong>r flurry of attempts at<br />
wholesale constitutional revision, including a Trudeau government proposal<br />
for an entirely new <strong>Constitution</strong>, a Task Force on national unity <strong>and</strong> a series of<br />
First Ministers meetings (Cairns, 1984). <strong>The</strong> attempt to negotiate an<br />
intergovernmental agreement on a large package of constitutional proposals<br />
was resumed after <strong>the</strong> defeat of <strong>the</strong> separatist option in <strong>the</strong> Quebec referendum<br />
of 1980. When that failed, Prime Minister Trudeau launched his own unilateral<br />
initiative to patriate <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong> with a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights, an<br />
42
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada<br />
effort which, after a negotiated agreement with all of <strong>the</strong> provinces except<br />
Quebec, produced <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, 1982 (Milne, 1982).<br />
<strong>The</strong> one striking feature which <strong>the</strong>se earlier efforts at macro constitutional<br />
change in Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada have in common is <strong>the</strong> paucity of concrete<br />
results. On <strong>the</strong> Australian side, only a few scattered constitutional<br />
amendments can be associated with <strong>the</strong> various efforts. One of <strong>the</strong> Joint<br />
Parliamentary Committee’s recommendations—to empower <strong>the</strong><br />
Commonwealth to legislate in relation to aborigines—was approved in a 1967<br />
referendum. Only three of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Convention’s numerous<br />
resolutions led to actual constitutional amendments <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>se were all on<br />
relatively minor matters: <strong>the</strong> proposals approved in <strong>the</strong> 1977 referendums on<br />
<strong>the</strong> retirement age of federal judges, territorial voting on referendums <strong>and</strong><br />
filling Senate vacancies. Five o<strong>the</strong>r constitutional proposals were approved in<br />
referendums (<strong>and</strong> thirty rejected) but <strong>the</strong>se changes were not <strong>the</strong> offspring of<br />
gr<strong>and</strong> efforts at constitutional revision (Campbell, 1989). <strong>The</strong> Australian<br />
amending process is indeed quite inhospitable to projects of macro<br />
constitutional change. It is not just that proposals must win <strong>the</strong> approval of a<br />
majority of voters nationally <strong>and</strong> of majorities in a majority (four of six) States.<br />
But constitutional proposals are put to <strong>the</strong> voters one-by-one, so that a<br />
brokered set of proposals built around cross-cutting compromises cannot be<br />
put to <strong>the</strong> people as a package deal.<br />
In Canada, too, <strong>the</strong> efforts at wholesale constitutional revision bore little<br />
tangible fruit. <strong>The</strong> 1940 constitutional amendment transferring jurisdiction<br />
over unemployment insurance did come out of <strong>the</strong> Rowell Sirois Royal<br />
Commission. <strong>The</strong> only o<strong>the</strong>r formal constitutional changes stemming from<br />
macro constitutional politics were those incorporated in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act,<br />
1982. While <strong>the</strong>re can be no doubt about <strong>the</strong> importance of <strong>the</strong> constitutional<br />
changes effected by this measure— especially <strong>the</strong> adoption of an all-Canadian<br />
amending process, a constitutional charter of rights <strong>and</strong> freedoms <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
recognition of aboriginal rights—<strong>the</strong>y none<strong>the</strong>less fell well short of <strong>the</strong> total<br />
overhaul of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> aimed at by <strong>the</strong> political elites participating in <strong>the</strong><br />
macro projects. Most significantly, <strong>the</strong> 1982 constitutional changes did not<br />
accommodate <strong>the</strong> constitutional aspirations of Quebec that had originally<br />
launched <strong>the</strong> effort at constitutional revision in <strong>the</strong> 1960s (Dufour, 1990).<br />
While <strong>the</strong> impetus for <strong>the</strong>se efforts at macro constitutional change in Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada came from opposite directions, <strong>the</strong> results were much <strong>the</strong> same:<br />
failure to resolve <strong>the</strong> underlying source of conflict. In Australia <strong>the</strong> major<br />
impetus came from <strong>the</strong> <strong>La</strong>bor Party’s ideological drive against federalism <strong>and</strong><br />
towards centralization, whereas <strong>the</strong> impetus for Canada’s prolonged<br />
indulgence in macro level constitutional politics has been Quebec’s drive for<br />
national status within a looser federation. In both countries, <strong>the</strong> gadflies of<br />
macro constitutional politics, far from realizing <strong>the</strong>ir objectives, aroused<br />
counter movements which deepened <strong>the</strong> constitutional conflict. In Australia’s<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Convention, <strong>La</strong>bour’s centralism was held in check by political<br />
forces supporting State powers <strong>and</strong> a strong Senate—but produced no<br />
consensus on constitutional change. In Canada, patriation with a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of<br />
Rights, though a victory for <strong>the</strong> Canadian nationalist forces resisting Quebec<br />
nationalism, did not slake Quebec’s thirst for more autonomy.<br />
43
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Recent Efforts<br />
Nor did <strong>the</strong> limited results of <strong>the</strong> macro efforts slake <strong>the</strong> thirst of political elites<br />
in ei<strong>the</strong>r country for <strong>the</strong> macro constitutional game. <strong>The</strong> effort continued<br />
through one more big round in Australia <strong>and</strong> two mega rounds in Canada.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se ra<strong>the</strong>r gargantuan efforts in both countries failed to bring about any<br />
constitutional changes. But, in <strong>the</strong>ir different ways, <strong>the</strong>y succeeded in<br />
producing a constitutional truce in <strong>the</strong>ir respective polities <strong>and</strong> at least a<br />
temporary respite from <strong>the</strong> macro constitutional wars. If this period of truce<br />
proves to be more than just a pause for breath, <strong>the</strong> recent rounds of macro<br />
constitutional politics in Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada will have been more decisive<br />
than ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>ir participants or critics appreciated.<br />
Since 1987, Canada has been through two very heavy rounds of constitutional<br />
politics, <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke round <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> so-called “Canada round” ending with<br />
<strong>the</strong> referendum on 26 October, 1992. Both, concluding as <strong>the</strong>y did with <strong>the</strong><br />
rejection of large packages of constitutional proposals, were case studies in <strong>the</strong><br />
politics of frustration.<br />
<strong>The</strong> package of proposals constituting <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, while large by<br />
any normal st<strong>and</strong>ard, was relatively small in <strong>the</strong> context of Canadian<br />
constitutional politics. Its limited size, <strong>and</strong> single-purpose shape were indeed<br />
major points of contention. Meech <strong>La</strong>ke’s singular purpose was to secure <strong>the</strong><br />
support of <strong>the</strong> Province of Quebec for <strong>the</strong> changes contained in <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> Act, 1982. Hence, it was built around a federalist Quebec<br />
government’s five conditions for accepting <strong>the</strong> 1982 outcome (Monahan,<br />
1991). For Canadians who shared Pierre Trudeau’s constitutional vision, this<br />
agenda was entirely unnecessary, or worse, subversive of what had been<br />
achieved in 1982. For those who were willing to engage in ano<strong>the</strong>r round of<br />
constitutional change, <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke agenda was far too small as it left out<br />
constitutional issues, such as Senate reform <strong>and</strong> aboriginal self-government,<br />
of vital concern to o<strong>the</strong>r parts of <strong>the</strong> Canadian community.<br />
If Canada’s constitutional process had remained thoroughly elitist, it is<br />
possible that <strong>the</strong> restricted nature of <strong>the</strong> Meech agenda would not have<br />
mattered. After all, <strong>the</strong> federal government <strong>and</strong> all ten provincial governments<br />
did agree to <strong>the</strong> Accord. But by <strong>the</strong> 1980s, Canada’s constitutional process<br />
could no longer be controlled by its First Ministers. Not only was <strong>the</strong>re now <strong>the</strong><br />
formal requirement of legislative ratification in <strong>the</strong> federal <strong>and</strong> provincial<br />
legislatures but, more fundamentally, <strong>the</strong> Meech round demonstrated that a<br />
democratic mutation had taken place in <strong>the</strong> country’s constitutional culture.<br />
This transformation, of which <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights was both a cause <strong>and</strong><br />
effect, had <strong>the</strong> tendency, in Alan Cairns words, to convert a “governments’<br />
constitution” into a “citizens’ constitution” (Cairns, 1991). In negotiating <strong>the</strong><br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord through closed-door meetings, <strong>the</strong>n unveiling it to a<br />
surprised <strong>and</strong> ungrateful public with <strong>the</strong> admonition that <strong>the</strong>ir elected<br />
legislatures could discuss it all <strong>the</strong>y wished so long as <strong>the</strong>y did not change a<br />
word of it, <strong>the</strong> federal <strong>and</strong> provincial premiers showed that <strong>the</strong>y had failed to<br />
grasp <strong>the</strong> full importance of <strong>the</strong> change taking place in Canada’s constitutional<br />
culture. Nor did <strong>the</strong>y anticipate how difficult it would be to combine <strong>the</strong><br />
traditional process of executive federalism with <strong>the</strong> new requirement of<br />
legislative ratification. It was <strong>the</strong> Meech process as much as its substance that<br />
accounts for its failure (Simeon, 1990).<br />
In <strong>the</strong> end, even though <strong>the</strong>re was no referendum, public opinion was crucial in<br />
<strong>the</strong> defeat of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord. When time ran out on <strong>the</strong> Accord in <strong>the</strong><br />
44
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada<br />
spring of 1990, although it had been ratified in all but two legislatures<br />
(Manitoba <strong>and</strong> Newfoundl<strong>and</strong>), legislators in those two provinces were<br />
fortified in <strong>the</strong>ir resistance by polling data showing that <strong>the</strong> Accord was<br />
opposed by a substantial majority of Canadians outside Quebec (Cohen,<br />
1990). And while <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord may still have been supported by a<br />
majority in Quebec, it was by <strong>the</strong>n a clear second choice to Quebec<br />
sovereignty. <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke round ended with <strong>the</strong> Canadian people more<br />
insistent than ever that <strong>the</strong>y must be <strong>the</strong> ultimate constitutional sovereign but<br />
more divided than ever about how <strong>the</strong>ir constitution should be changed<br />
(Russell, 1992, pp. 152-3).<br />
Even if <strong>the</strong> process of ratifying <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord had been completed in<br />
June 1990, ano<strong>the</strong>r round of macro constitutional politics would have<br />
immediately followed. That is because <strong>the</strong> conditions on which <strong>the</strong> hold-out<br />
provinces nearly agreed to ratify Meech—<strong>the</strong> so-called “son-of-Meech”<br />
agreement reached by <strong>the</strong> First Ministers on June 9, 1990—entailed a<br />
commitment to proceed with an extensive list of additional constitutional<br />
reforms including an elected Senate, aboriginal self-government <strong>and</strong> a<br />
comprehensive “Canada clause” expressing <strong>the</strong> defining features of <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian community (Russell, 1992, pp. 150-1). <strong>The</strong> post-Meech round did<br />
not begin with this agenda but with Quebec’s federalist <strong>and</strong> separatist leaders<br />
collaborating in <strong>the</strong> organization of a Quebec “estates general” (<strong>the</strong> Bélanger-<br />
Campeau Commission) to explore Quebec’s constitutional future in <strong>the</strong> wake<br />
of <strong>the</strong> rest of Canada’s rejection of Quebec’s “minimal dem<strong>and</strong>s” (Fidler,<br />
1991). None<strong>the</strong>less, it was clear that if Quebec <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> rest of Canada ever<br />
came toge<strong>the</strong>r in this constitutional round it would be through an agenda from<br />
which no serious constitutional aspiration or discontent in <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong> could be<br />
excluded.<br />
That was not <strong>the</strong> only legacy of Meech <strong>La</strong>ke. <strong>The</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r was that <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional process in this <strong>the</strong> so-called “Canada round” would have to be<br />
far more participatory than it had ever been in <strong>the</strong> past. And this it surely was,<br />
although not in any measured, disciplined or well-planned manner. Not only<br />
was <strong>the</strong>re <strong>the</strong> two-month referendum campaign on <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord<br />
at <strong>the</strong> end, but also in <strong>the</strong> two years leading up to that Accord, through all kinds<br />
of committees <strong>and</strong> commissions, <strong>the</strong> public was “consulted” on constitutional<br />
questions perhaps more thoroughly <strong>and</strong> exhaustingly than <strong>the</strong> public in any<br />
constitutional democracy has ever been consulted (Russell, 1992).<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canada round process can be likened to a ra<strong>the</strong>r peculiar hour-glass. <strong>The</strong><br />
top part of <strong>the</strong> glass, representing <strong>the</strong> public consultation stage of <strong>the</strong> process<br />
when most of <strong>the</strong> proposals contained in <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord were<br />
discussed <strong>and</strong> debated is, fairly wide. When <strong>the</strong>se proposals were h<strong>and</strong>ed over<br />
to political leaders <strong>and</strong> government officials for negotiation <strong>and</strong> refinement,<br />
<strong>the</strong> glass narrows. (Though <strong>the</strong> inclusion of territorial <strong>and</strong> aboriginal leaders<br />
made <strong>the</strong> multilateral negotiations more inclusive than <strong>the</strong>y had been in <strong>the</strong><br />
past.) It comes to its narrowest point in <strong>the</strong> summer of 1992 when <strong>the</strong> final<br />
terms of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord were hammered out in a process dominated<br />
by First Ministers. From that narrow neck, <strong>the</strong> process widened out again in <strong>the</strong><br />
referendum campaign. Indeed, this bottom part of <strong>the</strong> glass, though much<br />
shorter, is considerably wider than <strong>the</strong> upper part.<br />
<strong>The</strong> short, wide bottom <strong>and</strong> tiny neck are not <strong>the</strong> only unusual features of this<br />
hour-glass. A more serious flaw in <strong>the</strong> process is <strong>the</strong> structure of <strong>the</strong> upper-part<br />
of <strong>the</strong> glass: <strong>the</strong> public consultation, negotiation <strong>and</strong> refinement stages. <strong>The</strong><br />
45
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
process represented by this part of <strong>the</strong> glass was, for most of its length, divided<br />
into very nearly water-tight compartments: Quebec <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rest of Canada.<br />
Following Meech, public discussions of constitutional options in <strong>the</strong> two parts<br />
of Canada were disconnected. Not only were <strong>the</strong>y different in time <strong>and</strong> in<br />
forum, but, most significantly, <strong>the</strong>y addressed different questions. In Quebec,<br />
through Bélanger-Campeau <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Liberal Party’s Allaire Committee,<br />
consultations that had run <strong>the</strong>ir course by <strong>the</strong> spring of 1991, discussion<br />
focused almost exclusively on <strong>the</strong> question of what Quebec needs to fulfil its<br />
constitutional aspirations. In <strong>the</strong> rest of Canada, through <strong>the</strong> Spicer<br />
Commission (Canada, Citizens’ Forum, 1991) <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> various provincial,<br />
territorial <strong>and</strong> parliamentary committees culminating in <strong>the</strong> Beaudoin-Dobbie<br />
proposals at <strong>the</strong> end of February 1992 (Canada. Special Joint Parliamentary<br />
Committee, 1992), <strong>the</strong> critical question was how to reform <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> in<br />
a manner acceptable to all parts of <strong>the</strong> Canadian community.<br />
As <strong>the</strong> process narrowed in <strong>the</strong> negotiating <strong>and</strong> refinement stage, <strong>the</strong> Quebec<br />
section of <strong>the</strong> glass was nearly empty. Only when it reached <strong>the</strong> narrowest<br />
point of <strong>the</strong> neck did Quebec, in <strong>the</strong> person of Premier Bourassa, engage<br />
directly in <strong>the</strong> process. By <strong>the</strong>n Bourassa confronted what was very nearly “a<br />
done deal”—a set of proposals striking a delicate balance among<br />
constitutional interests in <strong>the</strong> Rest of Canada. At this stage ano<strong>the</strong>r deal was<br />
made by literally pulling a rabbit out of a house: a guarantee to Quebec of 25%<br />
of <strong>the</strong> seats in <strong>the</strong> House of Commons in return for Quebec’s acceptance of<br />
provincial equality in an elected Senate. This proposal, though potentially a<br />
very integrative way of accommodating Quebec’s special status in Canada,<br />
was an entirely novel proposal for which <strong>the</strong> public, nei<strong>the</strong>r inside or outside<br />
Quebec, had been prepared. Is it any wonder that this accord of governments<br />
could not, in two months, be converted into an accord of peoples?<br />
<strong>The</strong>re was never much doubt that <strong>the</strong> culmination of this round would be <strong>the</strong><br />
submission of proposals to <strong>the</strong> people in a national referendum. <strong>The</strong> swelling<br />
sentiment of popular sovereignty was fortified by legislation in British<br />
Columbia <strong>and</strong> Alberta requiring referendums before legislative ratification of<br />
any constitutional proposal (Boyer, 1992). As of May 1991, Quebec was<br />
legislatively committed to having a referendum by October 26, 1992 ei<strong>the</strong>r on<br />
Quebec sovereignty or <strong>the</strong> “best offer” forthcoming from <strong>the</strong> rest of Canada.<br />
And yet it was not until June 1992 that <strong>the</strong> Mulroney government brought in<br />
federal legislation to authorize a federal referendum <strong>and</strong> not until <strong>the</strong> final<br />
signing of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown agreement that it signified its intention to submit<br />
<strong>the</strong> Accord to <strong>the</strong> people. This late conversion to a referendum meant that <strong>the</strong><br />
politicians, officials <strong>and</strong> experts who were closeted toge<strong>the</strong>r negotiating <strong>the</strong><br />
Accord through <strong>the</strong> spring <strong>and</strong> summer of 1992 were never consciously<br />
working towards a referendum (Johnson, 1993). As a consequence, <strong>the</strong><br />
product of <strong>the</strong>ir labours—an agreement containing some sixty clauses<br />
sprinkled with asterisks marking unfinished business to be settled by more<br />
negotiations in <strong>the</strong> future—was not designed as a document for popular<br />
ratification. In <strong>the</strong> Canada round, elite negotiations <strong>and</strong> popular ratification<br />
came toge<strong>the</strong>r too late <strong>and</strong> too fast to provide <strong>the</strong> foundation for a genuine<br />
social contract.<br />
Though <strong>the</strong> referendum was not legally binding <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> federal referendum<br />
law did not specify what would constitute a definitive yes or no, <strong>the</strong> results of<br />
<strong>the</strong> October 26 referendum were not difficult to interpret. To <strong>the</strong> question “Do<br />
you agree that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> of Canada should be renewed on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong><br />
agreement reached at Charlottetown on August 28, 1992?” 54% of <strong>the</strong> voters<br />
46
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada<br />
answered “no.” Only in Ontario (<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re only by a hair), New Brunswick,<br />
Prince Edward Isl<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Yukon Territory did <strong>the</strong> “yes” side win<br />
majorities (Russell, 1993). Given that parts of <strong>the</strong> Accord required legislative<br />
ratification by all of <strong>the</strong> provinces <strong>and</strong> most of it by seven, an attempt to<br />
achieve legislative ratification was out of <strong>the</strong> question. <strong>The</strong> Charlottetown<br />
Accord was dead.<br />
In rejecting <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord, Canadians demonstrated <strong>the</strong>ir capacity<br />
as a sovereign people to reach a negative result. But when one bears in mind<br />
that <strong>the</strong> primary reason for <strong>the</strong> Accord’s rejection in <strong>the</strong> rest of<br />
Canada—namely that <strong>the</strong> Accord appeared to give Quebec too much—was <strong>the</strong><br />
exact reverse of <strong>the</strong> main reason for <strong>the</strong> Accord’s rejection in<br />
Quebec—namely that <strong>the</strong> Accord did not give Quebec enough—<strong>the</strong>re are no<br />
grounds for believing that <strong>the</strong> basis exists for a positive consensus among <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian people on fundamental changes in <strong>the</strong>ir constitutional arrangements.<br />
That hard thought should cool <strong>the</strong> ardour of most politicians for yet ano<strong>the</strong>r go<br />
at <strong>the</strong> macro constitutional game.<br />
While Canada was swirling through two intense rounds of constitutional<br />
politics, Australians were subjected to one more macro constitutional effort<br />
which was followed by a much more pragmatic <strong>and</strong> reflective treatment of<br />
constitutional matters as <strong>the</strong> federation prepares for <strong>the</strong> completion of its first<br />
century. Just as <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke round was generated by dissatisfaction on <strong>the</strong><br />
part of Quebec, Canada’s principal gadfly of constitutional change, with <strong>the</strong><br />
1982 constitutional settlement, Australia’s last macro round was unleashed by<br />
dissatisfaction within <strong>the</strong> Australian <strong>La</strong>bour Party, Australia’s main<br />
constitutional gadfly, with <strong>the</strong> Australian <strong>Constitution</strong>al Convention.<br />
Australia’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission was a major <strong>and</strong> unsuccessful effort to<br />
generate public interest in comprehensive constitutional reform. <strong>The</strong><br />
Commission was established in 1985 by <strong>the</strong> Commonwealth Government as a<br />
direct reaction to <strong>the</strong> <strong>La</strong>bour Party’s disillusionment with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Convention. <strong>The</strong> Convention was <strong>the</strong> one Australian effort at macro<br />
constitutional reform that was primarily State-inspired. <strong>The</strong> Commonwealth<br />
government under both Whitlam <strong>and</strong> Hawke participated but failed to<br />
persuade <strong>the</strong> Convention ei<strong>the</strong>r to ab<strong>and</strong>on proposals designed to curb<br />
Canberra’s fiscal domination of <strong>the</strong> Australian federation or to adopt <strong>La</strong>bour’s<br />
centralizing agenda. <strong>La</strong>ck of bi-partisan consensus on major issues prevented<br />
action from being taken on most of <strong>the</strong> Convention’s recommendations.<br />
Immediately following <strong>the</strong> Convention’s 1985 meeting in Brisbane, <strong>the</strong><br />
Commonwealth Attorney General, Lionel Bowen, announced <strong>the</strong> <strong>La</strong>bour<br />
government’s intention to form a “Peoples Convention.” By going over <strong>the</strong><br />
heads of politicians to citizens “with expertise but with no political axe to<br />
grind,” he thought it would be possible to develop a program of “progressive”<br />
constitutional reform (<strong>The</strong> Australian, 30 July, 1985).<br />
From <strong>the</strong> very beginning, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission was flawed by its<br />
partisan rationale <strong>and</strong> sponsorship. By 1985, <strong>La</strong>bour’s interest in<br />
constitutional reform had cooled considerably since <strong>the</strong> 1975 crisis. But those<br />
like Lionel Bowen, who still carried <strong>the</strong> constitutional torch, continued to<br />
assume that if <strong>the</strong> people were adequately exposed to <strong>the</strong> limitations of <strong>the</strong><br />
rickety old <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>the</strong>y would, among o<strong>the</strong>r things, come to appreciate<br />
<strong>the</strong> inefficiencies of federalism, <strong>the</strong> undemocratic nature of a Senate based on<br />
<strong>the</strong> principle of State equality <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Governor General’s powers, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
need for a constitutional bill of rights. This was <strong>the</strong> “progressive agenda” of<br />
47
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
constitutional reform which not only was <strong>La</strong>bour’s motive in establishing <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission but also—<strong>and</strong> this is <strong>the</strong> essential point—was seen by its partisan<br />
political opponents as <strong>the</strong> Commission’s primary purpose (Cooray, 1989). <strong>The</strong><br />
Commission’s composition did little to allay <strong>the</strong>se partisan suspicions.<br />
Though its six members included two law professors, a Federal Court judge<br />
<strong>and</strong> a former Liberal State premier, its o<strong>the</strong>r two members were prominent<br />
<strong>La</strong>bourites, former <strong>La</strong>bour Prime Minister Gough Whitlam <strong>and</strong> Sir Maurice<br />
Byers, a former Commonwealth Solicitor General, who chaired <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission.<br />
To give some semblance of reality to <strong>the</strong> notion of a “Peoples Convention,” an<br />
effort was made to broaden <strong>the</strong> Commission’s base by establishing Advisory<br />
Committees on <strong>the</strong> Distribution of Powers, Trade <strong>and</strong> National Economic<br />
Management, Individual <strong>and</strong> Democratic Rights, Executive Government <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Judicial System (Australia. <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission, 1988, Appendices<br />
A <strong>and</strong> B). <strong>The</strong> membership of <strong>the</strong>se committees included academic experts<br />
<strong>and</strong> lawyers, persons from <strong>the</strong> arts, <strong>the</strong> media <strong>and</strong> industry. <strong>The</strong> efforts of <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission <strong>and</strong> its Advisory Committees to engage <strong>the</strong> people in <strong>the</strong> process<br />
of constitutional renewal were olympian—even by Canadian st<strong>and</strong>ards.<br />
Hearings were conducted throughout <strong>the</strong> country, issue papers <strong>and</strong> interim<br />
reports widely distributed (on one occasion in comic-book form, Australia.<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission, 1987) <strong>and</strong> several hundred thous<strong>and</strong> copies of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> printed for free distribution. <strong>The</strong> Commission even sponsored<br />
essay-writing contests for school children <strong>and</strong> adults on “What <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> means to us.”<br />
Despite <strong>the</strong>se strenuous public relations efforts, <strong>the</strong> public took very little<br />
interest in <strong>the</strong> work of <strong>the</strong> Commission. <strong>The</strong> Commission’s survey of public<br />
attitudes to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> gives a good indication of why public interest in<br />
constitutional politics in Australia is not easily aroused: only 53.9% of<br />
Australians knew that Australia has a written <strong>Constitution</strong> (Australia,<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission, 1988, p. 43). In <strong>the</strong> end, when <strong>the</strong> Hawke<br />
government rudely pulled <strong>the</strong> rug out from under its own Commission, no hue<br />
<strong>and</strong> cry could be heard from <strong>the</strong> Australian people.<br />
And jettison <strong>the</strong> Commission’s work is exactly what <strong>the</strong> <strong>La</strong>bour government<br />
did to its <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission. A few days after <strong>the</strong> Commission<br />
released its mammoth two-volume First Report on May 6, 1988, <strong>the</strong><br />
government introduced in <strong>the</strong> House of Representatives proposals for<br />
constitutional referendums on four proposed amendments. It has been<br />
suggested that <strong>the</strong> government’s hasty response to <strong>the</strong> Commission’s report<br />
was prompted by a desire to get <strong>the</strong> constitutional reform initiative out of <strong>the</strong><br />
way before <strong>the</strong> next general election (Sharman, 1989). Whatever <strong>the</strong><br />
explanation of <strong>the</strong> government’s action, it put paid to <strong>the</strong> work of <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission. By <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong> Commission’s Final Report was tabled in <strong>the</strong><br />
House of Representatives in October 1988 (Australia. <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Commission, 1988), <strong>the</strong> four proposed amendments associated had been<br />
firmly rejected by <strong>the</strong> people in <strong>the</strong> September referendum rendering <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission’s report, in <strong>the</strong> poignant words of Enid Campbell, one of <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission’s hardest working members, “a document of little more than<br />
academic interest” (Campbell, 1989). 2<br />
<strong>The</strong> four proposals put to <strong>the</strong> people in <strong>the</strong> September referendum bore little<br />
relationship to <strong>the</strong> comprehensive program of constitutional reform proposed<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Commission. Three of <strong>the</strong> proposals were based on <strong>the</strong> more populist<br />
48
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada<br />
items among <strong>the</strong> Commission’s recommendations. One of <strong>the</strong>se would simply<br />
have given constitutional recognition to <strong>the</strong> existence of local government. A<br />
second was designed to overcome maldistribution in federal, State <strong>and</strong><br />
Territorial elections, while <strong>the</strong> third, ra<strong>the</strong>r than putting forward <strong>the</strong> full charter<br />
of rights proposed by <strong>the</strong> Commission, simply proposed that <strong>the</strong> three basic<br />
rights which are already in <strong>the</strong> Australian <strong>Constitution</strong> but apply only to <strong>the</strong><br />
Commonwealth—namely freedom of religion, trial by jury <strong>and</strong> “just terms” in<br />
expropriating property —become limits on State <strong>and</strong> Territorial governments.<br />
<strong>The</strong> fourth proposal, to increase <strong>the</strong> maximum term of <strong>the</strong> House of<br />
Representatives from three to four years <strong>and</strong> reduce Senators’ terms from six<br />
to four years, was a vintage piece of <strong>La</strong>bour constitutionalism similar to<br />
proposals for simultaneous elections rejected in referendums in 1974, 1977<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1988.<br />
<strong>The</strong> opposition parties attacked all four constitutional proposals just as<br />
vigorously as <strong>the</strong>y had attacked <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission throughout its<br />
existence. Although early polls showed majority support for <strong>the</strong> proposals,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y were soundly rejected in <strong>the</strong> September referendum. Indeed, <strong>the</strong> four<br />
proposed amendments “suffered <strong>the</strong> worst defeat of any slate of referendum<br />
proposals ever put to <strong>the</strong> Australian people” (Galligan, 1989, p. 119). None of<br />
<strong>the</strong> four proposals was able to win an overall majority or a majority in any of<br />
<strong>the</strong> States. Thus, in abject failure, ended Australia’s latest fling at macro<br />
constitutional change.<br />
<strong>The</strong> death of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission in 1988 has not been followed by<br />
anything that could be considered ano<strong>the</strong>r effort at macro constitutional<br />
change. It is not so much that Australians are suffering from what Canadians<br />
call constitutional fatigue, but that <strong>the</strong>ir political elites have learned two things<br />
about constitutional politics: first, that constitutional restructuring cannot be<br />
achieved as a partisan political project, <strong>and</strong> second, that constitutional reform<br />
is not a necessary condition for making <strong>the</strong> federation operate more efficiently.<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al politics are proceeding accordingly, <strong>and</strong> quietly, along two<br />
tracks.<br />
<strong>The</strong> first track is linked to <strong>the</strong> completion of Australia’s first century, <strong>and</strong> is<br />
fundamentally educational <strong>and</strong> non-partisan in character. <strong>The</strong> key event in<br />
inaugurating activity along this track was a Conference held at Sydney in April<br />
1991 to celebrate ano<strong>the</strong>r centenary (Australians are very keen on centennial<br />
celebrations): <strong>the</strong> constitutional convention held in Sydney in 1891 which<br />
drafted much of what was to become <strong>the</strong> Australian <strong>Constitution</strong>. <strong>The</strong> 1991<br />
assembly was a considerably more representative body than its 1891<br />
predecessor. <strong>The</strong> 89 persons who attended came from all parts of Australia <strong>and</strong><br />
New Zeal<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> besides academics, lawyers, judges, bureaucrats, business<br />
<strong>and</strong> labour leaders, included women, aborigines <strong>and</strong> school children<br />
(Solomon, 1991). Prime Minister Hawke, <strong>the</strong> Opposition leaders <strong>and</strong> State<br />
Premiers did not join <strong>the</strong> Conference until its fourth <strong>and</strong> final day.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Sydney conference did not attempt to draft constitutional proposals.<br />
Indeed, <strong>the</strong>re was no consensus among its participants that constitutional<br />
reform was necessary. Instead, it identified a dozen issues “to be pursued over<br />
<strong>the</strong> course of this constitutional decade” (Australia, <strong>Constitution</strong>al Centenary,<br />
April 1992, p. 7). This cluster of issues marked a distinct shift from <strong>the</strong><br />
traditional, constitutional, Australian agenda <strong>and</strong> a considerable convergence<br />
with constitutional concerns in o<strong>the</strong>r industrial democracies. In reforming<br />
federalism, <strong>the</strong> emphasis shifted from <strong>La</strong>bour’s interest in reducing <strong>the</strong> powers<br />
49
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Senate <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> States to <strong>the</strong> broader <strong>the</strong>mes of accountability <strong>and</strong><br />
globalization. <strong>The</strong>re was “broad agreement” to reduce <strong>the</strong> vertical, fiscal<br />
imbalance in Australian federalism that separates responsibility for delivering<br />
programs from raising revenues to pay for <strong>the</strong>m. Globalization was evident in<br />
<strong>the</strong> commitment not only to streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> economic union within Australia<br />
but to explore “<strong>the</strong> constitutional implications of closer economic relations<br />
with New Zeal<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r countries.” Concern was expressed about<br />
reducing executive domination of parliament, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was a hint of growing<br />
republicanism in <strong>the</strong> desire to review <strong>the</strong> powers <strong>and</strong> selection of <strong>the</strong> Head of<br />
State. Individual <strong>and</strong> group rights were also a major concern with<br />
commitments to move towards a “guarantee of basic rights” through a process<br />
of public education <strong>and</strong> discussion <strong>and</strong> to achieve a “reconciliation between<br />
<strong>the</strong> aboriginals <strong>and</strong> Torres Strait Isl<strong>and</strong>er peoples <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> wider Australian<br />
community” (<strong>Constitution</strong>al Centenary, April 1992, p. 8).<br />
<strong>The</strong> process for working on this agenda was decidedly low key <strong>and</strong> laid-back.<br />
Through <strong>the</strong> 1990s, Australians would consider constitutional changes that<br />
would prepare <strong>the</strong>ir country for its second century. To facilitate this<br />
constitutional review, <strong>the</strong>re would be a series of centenaries commemorating<br />
various stage in <strong>the</strong> 1890s federating process. 3 To steer this process along, a<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Centenary Foundation was established. It is headed by former<br />
High Court judge <strong>and</strong> Governor General, Sir Ninian Stephen. <strong>The</strong> Foundation<br />
works in association with <strong>the</strong> Centre for Comparative <strong>Constitution</strong>al Studies<br />
recently established at <strong>the</strong> University of Melbourne under <strong>the</strong> leadership of <strong>the</strong><br />
Foundation’s Deputy Chair, Professor Cheryl Saunders. To ensure <strong>the</strong><br />
Foundation’s independence, its funding is to come from both levels of<br />
government, <strong>the</strong> private sector <strong>and</strong> individuals.<br />
<strong>The</strong> second track was opened up by Prime Minister Hawke’s “New<br />
<strong>Federalism</strong>” speech at <strong>the</strong> National Press Club in Canberra in July 1990, <strong>and</strong><br />
represents a return to a process of constitutional adaptation which a generation<br />
of constitutional reformers in Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada have tended to spurn. <strong>The</strong><br />
objective of Hawke’s “New <strong>Federalism</strong>” was entirely functional: “to improve<br />
our national efficiency <strong>and</strong> international competitiveness.” <strong>The</strong> first task in<br />
achieving this reform was not constitutional reform but moving “by sensible,<br />
practicable steps to get better co-operation within <strong>the</strong> framework of <strong>the</strong> Federal<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> as it st<strong>and</strong>s” (Hawke, 1990, pp. 1 <strong>and</strong> 19). Hawke emphasized <strong>the</strong><br />
need for harmonizing state regulatory st<strong>and</strong>ards. Noting that by 1992 <strong>the</strong>re<br />
would be fewer impediments to <strong>the</strong> free flow of commerce among <strong>the</strong> twelve<br />
sovereign nations of <strong>the</strong> European Community than among <strong>the</strong> States of<br />
Australia, he called for a streng<strong>the</strong>ning of Australia’s economic union. While<br />
improvement at <strong>the</strong> micro-economic level was to be achieved through<br />
Commonwealth-State co-operation, at <strong>the</strong> macro-economic level—here his<br />
traditional <strong>La</strong>bor centralism showed through—“Australia must have one<br />
central level of effective economic management” (Hawke, 1990, p. 5). Even<br />
though much of <strong>the</strong> New <strong>Federalism</strong> could be accomplished through intergovernmental<br />
co-operation, Hawke still clung to <strong>the</strong> belief that, eventually,<br />
some formal constitutional change would be required. But constitutional<br />
reform would not be pushed by his government for he had come to <strong>the</strong><br />
conclusion, long obvious to most observers of Australia’s constitutional<br />
politics, “that it is almost impossible to amend our <strong>Constitution</strong> in an<br />
atmosphere of partisan controversy” (Hawke, 1990, p. 11).<br />
<strong>The</strong> process for working at <strong>the</strong> new federalism employed an instrument well<br />
known to Canadians: First Ministers’ meetings. At <strong>the</strong> first two Special<br />
50
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada<br />
Premiers’ meetings (October 1990 in Brisbane <strong>and</strong> July 1991 in Sydney),<br />
progress was made across a broad front in moving towards a more harmonious<br />
<strong>and</strong> efficient federal partnership (Intergovernmental News, November 1990,<br />
August 1991). This progress included agreements on mutual recognition of<br />
regulatory st<strong>and</strong>ards, an intergovernmental agreement on <strong>the</strong> environment,<br />
<strong>and</strong> agreements to establish a national rail corporation <strong>and</strong> a national electric<br />
grid.<br />
This happy interlude of co-operative federalism was soon overtaken by <strong>the</strong><br />
storm clouds of fiscal federalism <strong>and</strong> <strong>La</strong>bour Party politics. When Prime<br />
Minister Hawke indicated that at <strong>the</strong> next Special Premiers’ Conference<br />
scheduled for November 1991, he would be willing to discuss a proposal of <strong>the</strong><br />
State Premiers’ that <strong>the</strong>y should have a guaranteed share of <strong>the</strong> personal<br />
income tax field (6% of taxable income), Hawke’s leadership rival moved<br />
against him. Before <strong>the</strong> November conference could take place, Paul Keating,<br />
responding to <strong>La</strong>bour’s traditional centralism, took <strong>the</strong> stage at Canberra’s<br />
National Press Club to denounce Hawke’s sell-out to <strong>the</strong> States. Reducing <strong>the</strong><br />
States’ fiscal dependence on Canberra by guaranteeing <strong>the</strong>m tax-room, in<br />
Keating’s view, was pushing cooperative federalism over <strong>the</strong> line which “<strong>the</strong><br />
Federal <strong>La</strong>bour Government will not cross” (Keating, 1991, p. 1). Although<br />
denying that he was “an evangelical centralist,” Keating said he could not<br />
accept “<strong>the</strong> dismembering of <strong>the</strong> national government which would inevitably<br />
follow from surrendering revenues <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r national responsibilities to <strong>the</strong><br />
States” (Keating, 1991, p. 19). In words which have a familiar ring to Canadian<br />
ears, Keating also attacked <strong>the</strong> process of executive federalism. <strong>The</strong><br />
willingness to discuss major changes in <strong>the</strong> federation “behind <strong>the</strong> closed<br />
doors of Commonwealth-State committees” was a sorry contrast with <strong>the</strong><br />
open ways of Australia’s founders (Keating, 1991, p. 6).<br />
Hawke got <strong>the</strong> message. He was unwilling to put his shaky hold on <strong>the</strong><br />
leadership fur<strong>the</strong>r at risk <strong>and</strong> so pulled out of <strong>the</strong> November Conference. <strong>The</strong><br />
State Premiers <strong>and</strong> Territorial Chief Ministers met anyway—at Adelaide<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than Perth. <strong>The</strong> twenty-three page communique issued at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
meeting outlines an ambitious program of cooperative federalism including<br />
<strong>the</strong> establishment of a Council of <strong>the</strong> Federation, constituted by First<br />
Ministers, to foster <strong>and</strong> direct intergovernmental cooperation (Australia,<br />
Premiers’ <strong>and</strong> Chief Ministers’ Communique, November 1991, pp. 14-15).<br />
But <strong>the</strong> Premiers recognized that little progress could be made without <strong>the</strong><br />
participation of <strong>the</strong> Commonwealth government. That participation, it soon<br />
became clear, might not be forthcoming for quite some time. On December 19,<br />
1991, <strong>the</strong> <strong>La</strong>bour caucus in Canberra “rolled” Bob Hawke <strong>and</strong> installed Paul<br />
Keating as Prime Minister. Keating consolidated his hold on power by leading<br />
his party to victory in <strong>the</strong> general election of March, 1993.<br />
Despite Keating’s ascendency <strong>and</strong> his centralism, <strong>the</strong> “New <strong>Federalism</strong>” is not<br />
dead in Australia. Under Keating, <strong>the</strong>re will be no marked diminution of <strong>the</strong><br />
Commonwealth government’s fiscal hegemony in <strong>the</strong> Australian federation.<br />
But <strong>the</strong>re is too much at stake in terms of global competition for Australia to<br />
ab<strong>and</strong>on its efforts at removing unnecessary federal impediments to <strong>the</strong><br />
efficient functioning of its internal, political economy. <strong>The</strong> Council of<br />
Australian Governments called for by <strong>the</strong> Premiers has survived its first<br />
meeting, a meeting in which Mr. Keating’s government participated<br />
(Intergovernmental News, December 1992). Introducing a special 1992 issue<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Australian Journal of Political Science, devoted to <strong>the</strong> new federalism,<br />
Brian Galligan writes that “Although <strong>the</strong>re remain some pressures for, <strong>and</strong><br />
51
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
advocates of greater centralization, <strong>the</strong> future is more likely to be with greater<br />
diversity <strong>and</strong> complexity coupled with co-operative arrangements for<br />
harmonization” (Galligan, 1992, p. 6).<br />
Meantime, on <strong>the</strong> constitutional reform track, <strong>the</strong>re has been some movement<br />
though <strong>the</strong> pace is far from feverish. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Centenary Foundation<br />
has established its headquarters in Melbourne where its official launch took<br />
place on April 14, 1992. Its approach at this stage is largely educational.<br />
Indeed, <strong>the</strong> Foundation has responded to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission’s<br />
findings on Australians’ ignorance of <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>Constitution</strong> by making public<br />
education on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> one of its four priorities. <strong>The</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r priorities are<br />
parliamentary reform, <strong>the</strong> economic union <strong>and</strong> aboriginal peoples. 4 If <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
to be ano<strong>the</strong>r effort at macro constitutional change in Australia to mark <strong>the</strong><br />
country’s centenary, it will be attempted in a manner which is more organic,<br />
community-based <strong>and</strong> with much broader political support than previous<br />
efforts.<br />
Points of Comparison<br />
<strong>The</strong> Need for Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform<br />
In my study of constitutional politics, I have drawn a distinction between<br />
ordinary, piecemeal constitutional change <strong>and</strong> efforts to accomplish much<br />
larger projects of constitutional renewal (Russell, 1992, pp. 75-6). <strong>The</strong>se<br />
larger efforts at constitutional change I have termed macro or mega<br />
constitutional politics. Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada st<strong>and</strong> out among <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional democracies in <strong>the</strong> sustained attention <strong>the</strong>ir political elites have<br />
given such efforts over <strong>the</strong> last generation or so <strong>and</strong>, as <strong>the</strong> first part of this<br />
paper has shown, in <strong>the</strong> low level of positive achievement <strong>the</strong>se efforts have<br />
yielded. <strong>Constitution</strong>al politics in <strong>the</strong> two countries since 1987 indicate that<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is much less need for Australia, than <strong>the</strong>re is for Canada, to indulge in<br />
macro constitutional politics. Indeed, an unkind observer might conclude that,<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Australian case, <strong>the</strong> politics of frustration has been basically a selfinflicted<br />
misery—inflicted, that is, by part of <strong>the</strong> country’s political leadership<br />
on itself.<br />
<strong>The</strong> very ease with which Australia moved away from macro constitutional<br />
politics just as Canada was engaging in yet ano<strong>the</strong>r intense round supports this<br />
conclusion. One can point to periods in Canada’s recent history, too, —1971 to<br />
1976 <strong>and</strong> 1982 to 1987—when <strong>the</strong> constitutional debate simmered down for a<br />
while. But even during <strong>the</strong>se periods, forces were at work within <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
political community: <strong>the</strong> growth of a democratic Quebec separatist party, <strong>the</strong><br />
decolonization of aboriginal peoples, <strong>the</strong> development of western alienation<br />
<strong>and</strong> a growing sense of Canadian nationalism in English-speaking Canada—<br />
which would force <strong>the</strong> constitutional issue to resurface at <strong>the</strong> macro level.<br />
Indeed, I have used <strong>the</strong> term “mega constitutional politics” to capture <strong>the</strong> depth<br />
of <strong>the</strong> crisis generated by <strong>the</strong> conflicting constitutional aspirations <strong>and</strong><br />
grievances fuelling Canada’s constitutional debate (Russell, 1993). <strong>The</strong><br />
Canadian constitutional debate is fundamentally about <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong><br />
political community on which <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> is to be based. However much<br />
Canadians may weary of this debate, <strong>the</strong>y have been kept engaged in it because<br />
its terms—its contending definitions of <strong>the</strong> nation—touch <strong>the</strong>ir sense of<br />
personal identity <strong>and</strong> self-worth, <strong>and</strong> entail competing principles of political<br />
justice.<br />
52
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada<br />
In Australia, <strong>the</strong> efforts of <strong>the</strong> would-be constitutional reformers have been<br />
macro in that <strong>the</strong>y have aspired to much more than piecemeal change but not<br />
mega in that <strong>the</strong>y have not deeply engaged <strong>the</strong> people. If <strong>the</strong> Australian <strong>La</strong>bour<br />
Party had continued to adhere to a socialist ideology requiring Australia’s<br />
transformation from a federal to a unitary state, <strong>the</strong> debate might well have<br />
approached <strong>the</strong> mega level. But even in Gough Whitlam’s era, <strong>La</strong>bour was<br />
making its peace with federalism. <strong>The</strong> High Court’s centralism has helped in<br />
this process (Mason, 1988). Prime Minister Hawke acknowledged this in his<br />
speech inaugurating <strong>the</strong> New <strong>Federalism</strong> when he noted that “High Court<br />
decisions have done more to alter <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> than all <strong>the</strong> referendums”<br />
(Hawke, 1990, p. 15). By <strong>the</strong> 1980s, while <strong>La</strong>bour leaders still harboured<br />
constitutional reform sentiments, <strong>the</strong>y could not <strong>and</strong> did not claim that<br />
constitutional change was needed to achieve <strong>the</strong>ir policy objectives (Galligan,<br />
1989). No doubt <strong>the</strong>re are constitutional changes which both State <strong>and</strong><br />
Commonwealth leaders would welcome, but <strong>the</strong> impressive reform agenda<br />
produced by <strong>the</strong> November 1991 Premiers’ Conference demonstrates how<br />
much could be done to operate Australian federalism more efficiently (if not<br />
more accountably) without formal constitutional change.<br />
I am not suggesting ei<strong>the</strong>r that Australia will or should forsake formal<br />
constitutional change in <strong>the</strong> foreseeable future. <strong>The</strong>re are a number of reforms<br />
whose time may soon come. As in Canada, <strong>the</strong> gravest issue of constitutional<br />
injustice in Australia is <strong>the</strong> subjugation of its indigenous peoples. Though<br />
aborigines have not advanced nearly as far as Canada’s aboriginal peoples in<br />
asserting <strong>the</strong>ir right to be governed through constitutional arrangements to<br />
which <strong>the</strong>y have consented, <strong>the</strong>re are signs of progress in that direction. In <strong>the</strong><br />
courts, at long last, Australian judges are recognizing <strong>the</strong> existence of<br />
aboriginal rights (Brennan <strong>and</strong> Crawford, 1990, Brennan, 1992), <strong>and</strong>, at <strong>the</strong><br />
political level, <strong>the</strong> establishment of a broad-based Council for Aboriginal<br />
Reconciliation in December 1991 may lead to a formal reconciliation<br />
treaty—a social contract—between aboriginal <strong>and</strong> non-aboriginal Australians<br />
(Easterbrook, 1991). <strong>The</strong>re are also signs that <strong>the</strong> Australian republican<br />
movement is livelier now than even at <strong>the</strong> height of resentment over <strong>the</strong><br />
Governor General’s sacking of Whitlam in 1975. A resolution passed at <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>La</strong>bour Party’s annual conference in 1991, committing <strong>the</strong> Party to a ten-year<br />
campaign to make Australia a Republic (Sidney Morning Herald, 26 June,<br />
1991), was followed by <strong>the</strong> founding of a new Australian Republican<br />
Movement chaired by well-known author, Tom Keneally (Sidney Morning<br />
Herald, 7 July, 1991). Paul Keating seems determined to build a republican<br />
consensus by making it a rallying point for Australian nationalism. An even<br />
stronger consensus is building for a constitutional bill of rights. It would be a<br />
mistake to interpret <strong>the</strong> failure of <strong>the</strong> rights proposals in <strong>the</strong> 1988 referendum<br />
as a rejection of <strong>the</strong> idea of a full bill of rights (Galligan, Knopff <strong>and</strong> Ure,<br />
1990). That proposal’s failure probably has more to do with its partisan<br />
sponsorship <strong>and</strong> Catholic fear of <strong>the</strong> implications of <strong>the</strong> freedom of religion<br />
guarantee for state-supported religious schools than with <strong>the</strong> unpopularity of<br />
entrenching fundamental rights. A recent, in-depth study of Australian<br />
attitudes to civil liberties indicates that <strong>the</strong> level of support for a constitutional<br />
bill of rights is at 70%. 5<br />
Any of <strong>the</strong>se possible constitutional changes—<strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs might be<br />
accomplished each in its own time. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, Australia’s<br />
constitutional reformers might, once again, be inclined to attempt macro<br />
constitutional reform <strong>and</strong> celebrate <strong>the</strong> country’s centennial by presenting a<br />
53
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
package of proposals to <strong>the</strong> people at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> decade. If that occurs <strong>and</strong> is<br />
successful, it will not be an example of <strong>the</strong> Banting <strong>and</strong> Simeon <strong>the</strong>ory that<br />
“[l]ack of consensus makes constitutional change necessary. <strong>The</strong> same lack<br />
makes resolution supremely difficult” (Banting <strong>and</strong> Simeon, 1984, p. 25). On<br />
<strong>the</strong> contrary, it would be a constitutional restructuring introduced not to<br />
resolve a deep cleavage in <strong>the</strong> body politic but to mark a new, non-partisan<br />
consensus on <strong>the</strong> conditions of nationhood for Australia’s second century.<br />
Canada has <strong>the</strong> dubious honour of remaining a clear example of a nation-state<br />
driven to constitutional politics at <strong>the</strong> mega level by deep dissensus. This<br />
dissensus is as much <strong>the</strong> effect as <strong>the</strong> cause of constitutional politics. It is<br />
possible that had <strong>the</strong> federal political leaders in <strong>the</strong> 1984 election not<br />
committed <strong>the</strong>mselves to constitutional changes sufficient to overcome<br />
Quebec’s repudiation of <strong>the</strong> 1982 changes, <strong>and</strong> had Robert Bourassa’s Quebec<br />
Liberal Party been able to win power without committing itself to obtaining<br />
such changes, Quebec nationalism might have lost its momentum as a serious<br />
political force, thus removing any “necessity” to continue <strong>the</strong> macro<br />
constitutional effort. We can only speculate about such historical “might have<br />
beens.” However, we do know that <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke round deepened <strong>the</strong><br />
cleavages within <strong>the</strong> Canadian political community <strong>and</strong> made a fur<strong>the</strong>r round<br />
inevitable.<br />
It is too early to tell whe<strong>the</strong>r this round has produced some finality—even a<br />
decade or two—to Canada’s constitutional travails. What is clear is that <strong>the</strong><br />
present generation of Canadians will not try again to reach an accord on a broad<br />
package of constitutional changes designed to prevent a national unity crisis.<br />
Such was <strong>the</strong> effort <strong>and</strong> agony of <strong>the</strong> Canada round, that most of Canada’s<br />
politicians <strong>and</strong> most of its people have no stomach for resuming <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional struggle. If, in <strong>the</strong> near future, Canada plunges back into <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional maelstrom, it will be because <strong>the</strong>re is an actual not just an<br />
apprehended national unity crisis. Such a crisis will occur if <strong>the</strong> next Quebec<br />
election (which is due by 1994) produces a government committed to<br />
Quebec’s sovereignty <strong>and</strong> if that government wins a subsequent referendum<br />
on Quebec’s independence.<br />
In Canada, as in Australia, ab<strong>and</strong>oning efforts at macro constitutional change<br />
need not mean a constitutional deep freeze. If <strong>the</strong> Quebec majority does not<br />
push for a radical constitutional restructuring, it is just possible that Canadians<br />
might recover <strong>the</strong>ir capacity for incremental constitutional change <strong>and</strong><br />
adaptation. Such a reversion to ordinary, low key constitutional politics would<br />
require nothing less than <strong>the</strong> political class adopting what Stephen Holmes<br />
calls “gag rules” on <strong>the</strong> big mega questions of national identity <strong>and</strong> political<br />
justice (Holmes, 1988). <strong>The</strong> November 1982 referendum in <strong>the</strong> Eastern Arctic,<br />
paving <strong>the</strong> way for <strong>the</strong> self-governing, largely Inuit, region of Nunavut<br />
(Financial Post, November 17, 1992) <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> quiet passage in early 1993 of a<br />
constitutional amendment recognizing New Brunswick’s dualistic nature<br />
(Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1993) provide some early indication<br />
that constitutional change, retail ra<strong>the</strong>r than wholesale, is not impossible in<br />
Canada.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Process of Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Politics<br />
In both Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada, <strong>the</strong> final stage of <strong>the</strong> constitutional amendment<br />
process requires a form of democratic ratification: in Australia direct<br />
democracy through referendums; in Canada, since patriation, indirect<br />
54
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada<br />
democracy through legislative approval. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, in Canada, <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord precedent makes it politically imperative to have a<br />
referendum before legislative ratification of major constitutional changes<br />
(Boyer, 1992, p. 236). Both countries require extraordinary majorities for<br />
ratification: in Australia, two-thirds of <strong>the</strong> States <strong>and</strong> in Canada, two-thirds or,<br />
in some cases, all of <strong>the</strong> provinces. 6 Requiring extraordinary majorities for<br />
formal constitutional change is normal for democracies practising<br />
constitutionalism. For <strong>the</strong> very essence of constitutionalism, as Jon Elster has<br />
argued, is to protect principles <strong>and</strong> minorities from simple majority rule<br />
(Elster, 1988). None<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> unanimity rule in Canada, even though of<br />
limited application, is a pathological case of constitutionalism, reflecting deep<br />
distrust within <strong>the</strong> political community.<br />
<strong>The</strong> requirement of extraordinary majorities, quite properly, makes ordinary,<br />
piecemeal constitutional change a difficult task. But <strong>the</strong> difficulty is<br />
compounded mightily when macro constitutional change is attempted.<br />
Political elites in both Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada who have attempted macro<br />
constitutional change have under-estimated <strong>the</strong> difficulty. <strong>The</strong>y have not<br />
appreciated how far removed macro constitutional change is from normal<br />
constitutional reform <strong>and</strong> how close it comes to constitution-making. Among<br />
people practising a democratic form of constitutionalism, constitution-making<br />
is <strong>the</strong> supreme political challenge.<br />
<strong>The</strong> packages of constitutional reform proposals under consideration in<br />
Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada have involved negotiations among political 1eaders<br />
representing different, <strong>and</strong> sometimes conflicting, constitutional ideals <strong>and</strong><br />
aspirations. Negotiating is unavoidably an activity carried out by small<br />
numbers of people <strong>and</strong> is, in that sense, elitist. Electorates <strong>and</strong> legislatures, <strong>the</strong><br />
democratic ratifiers in Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada, do not negotiate. Of course <strong>the</strong>re<br />
are degrees of elitism. A First Ministers’ meeting is more elitist than a<br />
convention of legislative delegations <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> latter is narrower than constituent<br />
assemblies containing more than party politicians. <strong>The</strong>se <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r devices<br />
(parliamentary committees <strong>and</strong> federal commissions) have been tried, but<br />
nei<strong>the</strong>r country has established a negotiating process capable of producing an<br />
elite accord possessing sufficient democratic legitimacy to change <strong>the</strong> terms of<br />
<strong>the</strong> social contract. In <strong>the</strong>ir attempts at macro constitutional change nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Australia nor Canada have been able to marry an elitist drafting process to a<br />
more participatory democratic ratifying process.<br />
Although nei<strong>the</strong>r country has anything very positive to teach <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r about<br />
how to accomplish macro constitutional change, both have negative lessons to<br />
impart. <strong>The</strong> clearest lesson to be derived from Australia’s experience is that<br />
political elites with conflicting constitutional aspirations will not<br />
accommodate <strong>the</strong>ir differences within a broad-based assembly such as<br />
Australia’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al Convention when <strong>the</strong>y are not under <strong>the</strong> pressure of<br />
a genuine national crisis. Two recent Canadian studies of constituent<br />
assemblies support that conclusion (Fafard <strong>and</strong> Reid, 1991; Monahan, Covello<br />
<strong>and</strong> Batty, 1992). <strong>The</strong>se studies would go fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>and</strong> question <strong>the</strong><br />
effectiveness of any form of constituent assembly except to reorganize<br />
regimes when a breakup is ei<strong>the</strong>r imminent or actual.<br />
<strong>The</strong> principal negative lesson to be gleaned from Canada’s Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
experience is <strong>the</strong> folly of achieving a constitutional agreement through a<br />
closed, secretive process of elite accommodation before <strong>the</strong>re has been wide<br />
public discussion of constitutional alternatives. In <strong>the</strong> Canada round,<br />
55
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
politicians tried to heed this lesson by staging extensive public discussions<br />
before engaging in elite bargaining. But <strong>the</strong>ir accommodation was fatally<br />
flawed by its dependence on a proposal which had not been publicly aired.<br />
Australia, with its much longer tradition of democratic constitutionalism, may<br />
not need this Canadian lesson. However, <strong>the</strong> populist cannon-ball Mr. Keating<br />
fired across <strong>the</strong> bow of <strong>the</strong> Special Premiers’ Conferences warned of <strong>the</strong><br />
danger of moving too fast towards a reshaping of Australian federalism<br />
through a relatively closed <strong>and</strong> elitist process.<br />
As a result of <strong>the</strong>ir recent experiences, <strong>the</strong> political leadership in both countries<br />
should be older <strong>and</strong> wiser about <strong>the</strong> difficulty of putting brokered<br />
constitutional packages to <strong>the</strong> people. Australia’s <strong>Constitution</strong> requires that<br />
each “proposed law,” not packages of proposed laws, be submitted to <strong>the</strong><br />
electors. <strong>The</strong> highest number of proposals ever submitted at one time was six.<br />
This was in 1913 <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y were all defeated. Even if a great pile of proposals<br />
were submitted at one time (<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission recommended<br />
over 100 amendments), <strong>the</strong>re is no guarantee that those which are adopted will<br />
maintain <strong>the</strong> balance struck in negotiating <strong>the</strong> package. In Canada’s recent<br />
referendum, many people resented that <strong>the</strong>y had to vote “yes” or “no” on <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord as a whole ra<strong>the</strong>r than on each of its elements.<br />
<strong>The</strong> defeat of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord in <strong>the</strong> October referendum adds an<br />
important caveat to a maxim gleaned from Australia’s constitutional politics.<br />
As even Bob Hawke came to acknowledge, a positive outcome in a national<br />
referendum, particularly one requiring an extraordinary majority, is most<br />
unlikely if <strong>the</strong> proposals are opposed by a major political party. <strong>The</strong> Canadian<br />
caveat is that multi-partisan support, though a necessary condition, is not a<br />
sufficient condition for success in a referendum on fundamental constitutional<br />
change. <strong>The</strong> three major national parties—<strong>the</strong> Conservatives, Liberals <strong>and</strong><br />
NDP—all supported <strong>the</strong> Accord. Still, it failed. Here Canadian experience<br />
coincides with rejection of <strong>the</strong> Masstricht Treaty by <strong>the</strong> Danish people despite<br />
its support by that country’s major political parties.<br />
<strong>The</strong> deepest lesson would-be constitutional reformers might take from <strong>the</strong>se<br />
events is <strong>the</strong> need to have a little more reverence for <strong>the</strong>ir existing constitutions<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir peoples. <strong>Constitution</strong>al reverence need not mean total acquiesence in<br />
<strong>the</strong> constitutional status quo. But it should foster respect for methods of<br />
constitutional adaptation that are more incremental <strong>and</strong> less contentious than<br />
macro constitutional restructuring. In constitutional democracies worthy of<br />
<strong>the</strong> name, <strong>the</strong> people should not readily be persuaded to accept major<br />
transformations of <strong>the</strong>ir constitutional arrangements.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Globalization of <strong>Constitution</strong>al Politics<br />
As might be expected, Australian <strong>and</strong> Canadian constitutionalism show a good<br />
deal of reciprocal influence. Canada’s discussion of an Australian style “triple<br />
E” Senate <strong>and</strong> Australia’s discussion of a Canadian-style <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights are<br />
clear examples. But <strong>the</strong> care with which Australian constitutionalists study<br />
Canadian experience is not reciprocated by Canadians. Australia’s<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission, for example, in considering a constitutional bill<br />
of rights, looked carefully at Canada’s <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms,<br />
adopted <strong>the</strong> exact wording of its Section 1 (<strong>the</strong> reasonable limits clause) but<br />
split three-to-two against recommending its notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing clause<br />
(Australia. <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission, 1988, ch. 9). <strong>The</strong> architects of <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, in excluding elected Senators from<br />
56
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada<br />
<strong>the</strong> Cabinet, appear to have given no in-depth consideration of Australia’s<br />
experience in combining an elected Senate with a parliamentary regime.<br />
But <strong>the</strong>re are signs of a wider set of international forces influencing<br />
constitutional developments in both countries. One can certainly see this<br />
globalization at <strong>the</strong> level of ideas. <strong>The</strong> growing support in Australia for a<br />
constitutional bill of rights represents much more than <strong>the</strong> Canadian influence.<br />
Much of Alan Cairns analysis of <strong>the</strong> international influences on <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> applies to Australia—especially <strong>the</strong> international human rights<br />
movement (Cairns, 1992). 7 It is difficult to untangle <strong>the</strong> influence of American<br />
constitutionalism from this broader, world-wide interest in <strong>the</strong> codification<br />
<strong>and</strong> entrenchment of fundamental human rights. I have speculated that it is <strong>the</strong><br />
relatively greater strength of <strong>the</strong> American influence on Canada that accounts<br />
for its adopting a constitutional bill of rights earlier than its sister<br />
Commonwealth countries, Australia <strong>and</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong> (Russell, 1990). Even<br />
if American constitutionalism is on its way to becoming <strong>the</strong> modern analogue<br />
of Roman law, it is clear that each society stamps its own identity on <strong>the</strong><br />
adopted paradigm (Henkin <strong>and</strong> Rosenthal, 1990). This is evident in Canada’s<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> with its group rights, legislative override <strong>and</strong> absence of property<br />
rights. Australia’s constitutional bill of rights, when it comes, will no doubt<br />
have its distinguishing features. 8<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is also an important international dimension to <strong>the</strong> streng<strong>the</strong>ning of<br />
aboriginal rights in Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada. Aboriginal peoples from Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada have linked toge<strong>the</strong>r with indigenous peoples from o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
European-settler countries to form a world-wide movement. Through <strong>the</strong>se<br />
interactions, aboriginal peoples have stimulated one ano<strong>the</strong>r in asserting <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
rights to collective survival. Indigenous minorities have gained recognition as<br />
<strong>the</strong> “fourth world” <strong>and</strong> associated <strong>the</strong>ir political objectives with <strong>the</strong> whole<br />
process of decolonization (Manuel <strong>and</strong> Posluns, 1974). <strong>The</strong>re are many factors<br />
which account for Canada’s aboriginal peoples progressing more quickly in<br />
<strong>the</strong> constitutional arena than <strong>the</strong>ir Australian counterparts, but perhaps <strong>the</strong><br />
most important is <strong>the</strong> demonstration effect of Quebec nationalism in creating a<br />
political environment conducive to claims of ethnic or racial selfdetermination<br />
(Brock, 1989). Even if <strong>the</strong> macro constitutional struggle is not<br />
resumed in Canada or Australia, <strong>the</strong>re are many indications that <strong>the</strong> movement<br />
of aboriginal peoples towards self-government in both countries will continue.<br />
Globalization of <strong>the</strong> international economy has had a more tangible effect on<br />
constitutional po1itics in <strong>the</strong> two countries. In recent constitutional<br />
discussions in Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada, much concern is expressed about <strong>the</strong><br />
impediments to <strong>the</strong> flow of commerce across borders within <strong>the</strong> federations<br />
being greater than those at national borders in regional trading blocks. Much of<br />
<strong>the</strong> impetus behind Australia’s new federalism <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> economic union<br />
proposals in Canada’s current constitutional round stems from a desire,<br />
particularly within <strong>the</strong> business class, to adapt <strong>the</strong> economies of <strong>the</strong> federations<br />
to <strong>the</strong> imperatives of an increasingly competitive global economy (Business<br />
Council of Australia, 1991). In both countries, this tendency is counterbalanced<br />
by a social democratic tradition concerned about protecting national<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ards of social <strong>and</strong> environmental policy from <strong>the</strong> competitive pressures<br />
of a commercial union (Howse, 1992). This, in turn, puts a check on tendencies<br />
within <strong>the</strong> federations to decentralize power to governments more responsive<br />
to local majorities.<br />
57
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
As <strong>the</strong> Australian <strong>and</strong> Canadian economies become more closely integrated<br />
with neighbouring states, <strong>the</strong>se international pressures on <strong>the</strong> operation of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
federal systems will surely intensify. International trade agreements which<br />
aim at removing non-tariff barriers propel <strong>the</strong> parties, inexorably, towards<br />
homogenization of a broad range of policies. When <strong>the</strong>se international<br />
arrangements severely constrain <strong>the</strong> policy-making of both levels of<br />
government, only a strict formalist would deny <strong>the</strong>ir constitutional<br />
significance. At first, of course, <strong>the</strong> constitutional form of <strong>the</strong>se international<br />
regimes is confederal—all sovereignty being retained by <strong>the</strong> member states.<br />
But as <strong>the</strong> evolution of <strong>the</strong> European Community so clearly demonstrates, <strong>the</strong><br />
expansion of delegated authority at <strong>the</strong> centre generates a dem<strong>and</strong> for a more<br />
democratic central authority <strong>and</strong> a more federal form of political union. At this<br />
point, <strong>the</strong> question of political community <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> locus of sovereign<br />
constitutional authority is raised, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> realm of mega constitutional politics<br />
is entered.<br />
Canada, as it contemplates <strong>the</strong> North American Free Trade Agreement, is<br />
much closer to this international stage of constitutional politics than Australia.<br />
That may be one consolation Canadians can take from <strong>the</strong>ir having been more<br />
deeply inflicted than Australians with <strong>the</strong> frustrations of macro constitutional<br />
politics. That experience has better prepared <strong>the</strong>m to be citizens of <strong>the</strong> multinational<br />
states that lie in <strong>the</strong> future of human kind. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, a decade<br />
of quiet, non-partisan, constitutionalism with a strong emphasis on public<br />
education could produce a popular consensus on national renewal in Australia.<br />
If that were to occur, Australia will embark on its second century more secure<br />
in its national identity than Canada <strong>and</strong> with <strong>the</strong> confidence needed to take full<br />
advantage of regional integration.<br />
Notes<br />
1. In an earlier article I used this phrase to characterize constitutional politics in Australia <strong>and</strong><br />
Canada from 1900 to <strong>the</strong> mid-1980s (Russell, 1988).<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> report is indeed of academic interest. Altoge<strong>the</strong>r aside from its recommendations, its<br />
background accounts of constitutional issues in each chapter are of great value to<br />
constitutional cholars.<br />
3. <strong>The</strong>re are numerous possibilities: <strong>the</strong> 1893 Corowa Conferenœ, <strong>the</strong> 1895 Premiers’ meeting<br />
in Hobart, election of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Convention in 1897 <strong>and</strong> its meetings that year in<br />
Adelaide <strong>and</strong> Sydney, <strong>and</strong> in 1898 in Melbourne, <strong>the</strong> ratifying referendums in 1898, <strong>the</strong><br />
second referendum in New South Wales in 1899, <strong>the</strong> London conference in 1900, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
coming into force of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> on January 1, 1901 (<strong>La</strong> Nauze, 1972).<br />
4. Interviews with Sir Ninian Stephen, Chairman of <strong>the</strong> Foundation <strong>and</strong> Mr. Denis Tracey,<br />
Executive Director of <strong>the</strong> Foundation, Melbourne, December 1991.<br />
5. <strong>The</strong> study is being carried out by Brian Galligan <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r colleagues in Canberra using <strong>the</strong><br />
same methodology employed in <strong>the</strong> survey conducted in Canada by Paul Sniderman, Joseph<br />
Fletcher, Philip Tetlock <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> author (Galligan, 1992).<br />
6. Of course, Canada’s amending formula is considerably more complicated than this. For a<br />
full discussion see Meekison, 1988.<br />
7. On December 10, 1991, Australia took an important step in committing <strong>the</strong> country to<br />
complying with international human rights st<strong>and</strong>ards when it acceded to <strong>the</strong> First Optional<br />
Protocol to <strong>the</strong> International Covenant on Civil <strong>and</strong> Political Rights.<br />
8. A likely example is a religious freedom clause that does not threaten state-funded religious<br />
schools.<br />
Bibliography<br />
Australia, <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commisssion 1987 Australia’s <strong>Constitution</strong>: Time to Update.<br />
58
Attempting Macro <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada<br />
Australia, <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission 1988 Final Report.<br />
Australia, Joint Parliamentary Committee on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Review 1959 Report<br />
Australia, Special Premiers’ Conference 1991 Communique, Sidney 30 July 1991.<br />
Australia, Premiers’ <strong>and</strong> Chief Ministers’ Conference 1991 Communique, Adelaide, 21-2<br />
November, 1991.<br />
Australia, <strong>Constitution</strong>al Centenary Foundation 1992 <strong>Constitution</strong>al Centenary, No. 1, April<br />
1992.<br />
Banting, Keith <strong>and</strong> Richard Simeon 1985 Redesigning <strong>the</strong> State: <strong>The</strong> Politics of <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Change in Industrial Nations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.<br />
Boyer, Patrick 1992 Direct Democracy in Canada: <strong>The</strong> History <strong>and</strong> Future of Referendums.<br />
Toronto: Dunedin Press.<br />
Brennan, Frank <strong>and</strong> James Crawford 1990 “Aboriginality, Recognition <strong>and</strong> Australian <strong>La</strong>w:<br />
Where to from Here?” Public <strong>La</strong>w Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 53-79.<br />
Brennan, Frank 1992 “Mabo’s Case,” <strong>Constitution</strong>al Centenary, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 12-14.<br />
Brock, Kathy 1989 <strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>and</strong> Practice of Aboriginal Self-government: Canada in a<br />
Comparative Context Ph D Dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of<br />
Toronto.<br />
Business Council of Australia 1991 Government in Australia in <strong>the</strong> 1990s. Melbourne.<br />
Cairns, Alan 1984 “<strong>The</strong> Politics of <strong>Constitution</strong>al Renewal in Canada” in Keith Banting <strong>and</strong><br />
Richard Simeon (Eds.) Redesigning <strong>the</strong> State: <strong>The</strong> Politics of <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in<br />
Industrial Nations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 95-145.<br />
Cairns, Alan 1991 Disruptions: <strong>Constitution</strong>al Struggles from <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> to Meech <strong>La</strong>ke.<br />
Toronto: McClell<strong>and</strong> & Stewart.<br />
Cairns, Alan 1992 <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> versus <strong>Federalism</strong>. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.<br />
Campbell, Enid 1989 “Sou<strong>the</strong>y Memorial Lecture 1988: Changing <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>—Past <strong>and</strong><br />
Future,” Melbourne University <strong>La</strong>w Review Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1-23.<br />
Canada, 1972 Special Joint Committee of <strong>the</strong> Senate <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> House of Commons on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> of Canada. Final Report.<br />
Canada, 1991 Citizens’ Forum on Canada’s Future. Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing<br />
Centre.<br />
Canada, 1992 Special Joint Committee of <strong>the</strong> Senate <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> House of Commons 1992. A Renewed<br />
Canada.<br />
Canada, 1993 House of Commons Debates February 1, p. 15238.<br />
Cohen, Andrew 1990 A Deal Undone: <strong>The</strong> Making <strong>and</strong> Breaking of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord.<br />
Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.<br />
Cooray, Mark 1989 “<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change” in Brian Galligan <strong>and</strong> J. R.<br />
Ne<strong>the</strong>rcote (Eds) <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1988 Referendums. Canberra:<br />
<strong>Federalism</strong> Research Centre, Australian National University.<br />
Dufour, Christian 1990 A Canadian Challenge/ Le Défi québécois. <strong>La</strong>nzville, B.C.: Oolichan<br />
Books.<br />
Easterbrook, Margaret “Move for Koori reconciliation.” <strong>The</strong> Age, December 16, 1991.<br />
Elston, Jon 1988 “Introduction” in Jon Elster <strong>and</strong> Rune Slagstad (Eds.) <strong>Constitution</strong>alism <strong>and</strong><br />
Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
Fafard Patrick <strong>and</strong> Darrel R. Reid 1991 Constituent Assemblies: A Comparative Survey. Kingston:<br />
Queen’s University Institute of Intergovernmental Relations.<br />
Fidler, Richard, 1991 Canada, Adieu? Quebec Debates Its Future. <strong>La</strong>ntzville B.C.: Oolichan<br />
Books.<br />
Galligan, Brian 1989 “<strong>The</strong> 1988 Referendums in Perspective” in Brian Galligan <strong>and</strong> John<br />
Ne<strong>the</strong>rcote (Eds.) <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1988 Referendums. Canberra:<br />
<strong>Federalism</strong> Research Centre, Australian National University, pp. 118-133.<br />
Galligan, Brian 1992 “Australian <strong>Federalism</strong>: Rethinking <strong>and</strong> Restructuring,” Australian Journal<br />
of Political Science, Vol. 27, pp. 1-6.<br />
Galligan Brian, Rainer Knopff <strong>and</strong> John Ure 1989 “Australian <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Debate over a<br />
Bill of Rights.” Publius, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 53-67.<br />
Hawke, Robert 1990 “Towards a Closer Partnership.” Canberra: Office of <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister.<br />
Henkin, Louis <strong>and</strong> Albert Rosenthal (Eds.) 1990 <strong>Constitution</strong>alism <strong>and</strong> Rights: <strong>The</strong> Influence of<br />
<strong>the</strong> United States <strong>Constitution</strong> Abroad. New York: Columbia University Press.<br />
Holmes, Stephen 1988 “Gag rules of <strong>the</strong> politics of omission” in Jon Elster <strong>and</strong> Rune Slagstad<br />
(Eds) <strong>Constitution</strong>alism <strong>and</strong> Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-<br />
58.<br />
Howse, Robert 1992 Economic Union, Social Justice <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform: Towards a High<br />
But Level Playing Field. North York: York University Centre for Public <strong>La</strong>w <strong>and</strong> Public<br />
Policy.<br />
Johnson, Richard 1993 “An Inverted Logroll: <strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Accord <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Referendums,”<br />
PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 26, pp. 43-46.<br />
Keating, Paul 1991 “<strong>The</strong> Commonwealth <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> States <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> November Special Premiers’<br />
Meeting.” Canberra: National Press Club, 22 October, 1991.<br />
59
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
<strong>La</strong> Nauze, J.A. 1972 <strong>The</strong> Making of Australia’s <strong>Constitution</strong>. Melbourne: Melbourne University<br />
Press.<br />
Manuel George <strong>and</strong> Michael Posluns 1974 <strong>The</strong> Fourth World: An Indian Reality. Toronto: Collier<br />
Macmillan.<br />
Mason, Anthony 1988 “<strong>The</strong> Australian <strong>Constitution</strong> 1901-1988.” <strong>The</strong> Australian <strong>La</strong>w Journal,<br />
Vol. 62, pp. 752-60.<br />
Meekison, Peter 1988 “<strong>The</strong> Amending Formula” in R.D. Olling <strong>and</strong> M.W. Westmacott (Eds.)<br />
Perspectives on Canadian <strong>Federalism</strong>. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.<br />
Milne, David 1982 <strong>The</strong> New Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong>. Toronto: James Lorimer.<br />
Monahan, Patrick 1991 Meech <strong>La</strong>ke: <strong>The</strong> Inside Story. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.<br />
Monahan, Patrick, Lynda Covello <strong>and</strong> Jonathan Batty (Eds.) 1992 Constituent Assemblies: <strong>The</strong><br />
Canadian Debate in Comparative <strong>and</strong> Historical Context. North York: York University<br />
Centre for Public <strong>La</strong>w <strong>and</strong> Public Policy.<br />
Russell, Peter 1988 “<strong>The</strong> Politics of Frustration: <strong>The</strong> Pursuit of Formal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in<br />
Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada,” Australian-Canadian Studies. Vol. 6, pp. 1-32.<br />
Russell, Peter 1990 “<strong>The</strong> Diffusion of Judicial Review: <strong>The</strong> Commonwealth, <strong>the</strong> United States<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian Case,” Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 113-21.<br />
Russell, Peter 1992 <strong>Constitution</strong>al Odyssey: Can Canadians Become A Sovereign People?<br />
Toronto: University of Toronto Press<br />
Russell, Peter 1993 <strong>Constitution</strong>al Odyssey: Can Canadians Become A Sovereign People? (2nd<br />
Edition) Toronto: University of Toronto Press.<br />
Ryan, K.W. <strong>and</strong> H. D. Hewitt 1977 <strong>The</strong> Australian <strong>Constitution</strong>al Convention. Canberra: Centre<br />
for Research on Federal Financial Relations.<br />
Sawer, Geofrrey 1963 Australian Federal Politics <strong>and</strong> <strong>The</strong> <strong>La</strong>w, 1929-1949. Melbourne:<br />
Melbourne University Press.<br />
Sharman, Campbell 1989 “<strong>The</strong> Referendum Results <strong>and</strong> <strong>The</strong>ir Context” in Brian Galligan <strong>and</strong><br />
John Ne<strong>the</strong>rcote (Eds.) <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1988 Referendums.<br />
Canberra: <strong>Federalism</strong> Research Centre, Australian National University, pp. 105-117.<br />
Simeon, Richard 1990 “Why Did <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord Fail?” in Ronald Watts <strong>and</strong> Douglas<br />
Brown (Eds.) Canada: State of <strong>the</strong> Federation 1990. Kingston: Queen’s University Institute<br />
of Intergovernmental Relations.<br />
Solomon, David 1991 “Getting a constitution fit for <strong>the</strong> future,” <strong>The</strong> Australian, 5 April, 1991.<br />
60
David M. Thomas<br />
Turning a Blind Eye: <strong>Constitution</strong>al Abeyances<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian Experience<br />
Abstract<br />
Mature <strong>and</strong> workable constitutions contain areas of great ambiguity <strong>and</strong><br />
imprecision that are not mere compromises between principles, or weak<br />
constitutional conventions. <strong>The</strong>se gaps in a constitution, kept in place by<br />
deliberate non-exposure, are known as abeyances. Canada’s <strong>Constitution</strong> has<br />
contained a great many such areas: <strong>the</strong> long-st<strong>and</strong>ing lack of an amending<br />
formula was one example, fraught as it was with <strong>the</strong> dangers of French-<br />
English conflict, <strong>and</strong> raising as it did o<strong>the</strong>r abeyances. <strong>The</strong> rise of Quebec<br />
nationalism forced some of our abeyances into <strong>the</strong> open. <strong>The</strong> Unity Task Force<br />
Report of 1979 shows us struggling to deal with abeyances, especially<br />
binationalism, rooted in <strong>the</strong> federal system itself. <strong>The</strong> Report was dismissed by<br />
Trudeau; his response to Quebec nationalism helped create a new<br />
constitutional, intellectual <strong>and</strong> political dynamic, married to a changing<br />
social <strong>and</strong> demographic structure. New <strong>and</strong> symbolically powerful areas of<br />
conflict now clash with <strong>the</strong> old. <strong>The</strong> amending formulae created in 1982 did<br />
not, however, resolve former abeyances; <strong>the</strong>se have been worsened in ways<br />
that were not anticipated. Elite accommodation no longer seems capable of<br />
keeping abeyances in check. <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>and</strong> Charlottetown Accords <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
referendum of October 1992 are proof that we have exposed <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>’s<br />
anomalies, breached its abeyances (not without reason) <strong>and</strong> put in place a<br />
process that offers us slim hope that our “gaps of unsettlement” can be<br />
resolved satisfactorily.<br />
Résumé<br />
Les constitutions qui ont résisté à l’épreuve du temps comportent toutes des<br />
zones d’ambiguïté et d’imprécision qui ne résultent pas forcément de<br />
compromis entre des principes ni d’arrangements constitutionnels médiocres.<br />
Dans une constitution, ces lacunes, que l’on camoufle délibérément, sont dites<br />
« questions pendantes ». <strong>La</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne renfermait un gr<strong>and</strong><br />
nombre de ces zones, par exemple la très longue absence d’une formule<br />
d’amendement, qui risquait de soulever des conflits entre francophones et<br />
anglophones et qui créaient, elle-même, d’autres questions pendantes. <strong>La</strong><br />
montée du nationalisme québécois a mis en évidence plusieurs de nos<br />
questions pendantes. Le rapport du Groupe de travail sur l’unité canadienne,<br />
paru en 1979, s’efforçait de résoudre certaines de ces questions pendantes,<br />
notamment le binationalisme qui pousse ses racines dans le régime fédéral luimême.<br />
Ce rapport a été écarté par Trudeau, dont la réaction au nationalisme<br />
québécois a mis en branle une nouvelle dynamique constitutionnelle,<br />
intellectuelle et politique associée à une structure sociale et démographique<br />
en évolution. Aujourd’hui, de nouveaux sujets de conflit, chargés d’un<br />
symbolisme puissant, viennent s’ajouter aux anciens. <strong>La</strong> formule<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
d’amendement adoptée en 1982 n’a cependant pas résolu les questions en<br />
suspens; elle les a même envenimées d’une façon tout à fait inattendue. Les<br />
compromis entre les élites ne semblent plus capables de tenir ces questions<br />
sous le boisseau et le sort qui a été réservé à l’entente du lac Meech, à celle de<br />
Charlottetown et au référendum d’octobre 1992 montre clairement que les<br />
défauts de la <strong>Constitution</strong> sont désormais à découvert, ainsi que les questions<br />
en suspens, et que nous avons mis en marche un processus qui n’aidera guère à<br />
résoudre les contradictions et les malentendus.<br />
At <strong>the</strong> 1964 annual meeting of <strong>the</strong> Canadian Political Science Association in<br />
Charlottetown, Pierre Elliott Trudeau presented an unfinished version of a<br />
paper entitled “<strong>Federalism</strong>, Nationalism <strong>and</strong> Reason.” 1 In <strong>the</strong> summer of 1992,<br />
<strong>the</strong> University of Prince Edward Isl<strong>and</strong> was once again hosting <strong>the</strong><br />
Association’s annual ga<strong>the</strong>ring, but now scholars were wrestling with <strong>the</strong><br />
legacy of <strong>the</strong> Trudeau era <strong>and</strong> with <strong>the</strong> results of a fur<strong>the</strong>r twenty-eight years of<br />
constitutional change, debate <strong>and</strong> frustration. It is indeed Trudeau, above all,<br />
who has been responsible for forcing us to consider some of our deepest<br />
constitutional disjunctions <strong>and</strong> incompatibilities. And he has left us, once<br />
again, with unfinished business. Not that we should lay <strong>the</strong> opening of<br />
P<strong>and</strong>ora’s constitutional box at his feet alone. Far from it. He was as clearly<br />
aware as anyone that constitutional incrementalism was preferable to activism.<br />
In 1965, one year after his Charlottetown lecture, he wrote:<br />
I should be very surprised if real statesmen, given <strong>the</strong> facts of <strong>the</strong><br />
problem, arrive at <strong>the</strong> conclusion that our constitution needs drastic<br />
revision. 2<br />
Yet this is precisely what happened. And as a result of <strong>the</strong>se changes, we now<br />
face, in extreme form, <strong>the</strong> clash of almost every constitutional principle <strong>and</strong><br />
problem imaginable.<br />
<strong>The</strong> argument presented in this paper is as follows:<br />
• Mature <strong>and</strong> “living” constitutions are capable of containing unsettled areas<br />
of great importance, or “abeyances” which <strong>the</strong>y leave well alone. <strong>The</strong><br />
Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong> has contained a great many such areas; <strong>the</strong><br />
amending question is particularly illustrative of <strong>the</strong> kind of difficulties we<br />
have faced. Over <strong>the</strong> past quarter of a century, we have seemed increasingly<br />
determined to leave no abeyance undisturbed; we have been loa<strong>the</strong> to admit<br />
that such things should exist. We have tended to assume that all our<br />
constitutional problems have constitutional answers. Indeed we may also<br />
have assumed that many of our non-constitutional problems have<br />
constitutional solutions.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> period following <strong>the</strong> triumph of <strong>the</strong> Parti Québécois in 1976 saw a<br />
flurry of proposals for major constitutional change. Those efforts were<br />
exemplified by Bill C-60 <strong>and</strong>, in particular, by <strong>the</strong> Report of <strong>the</strong> Task Force<br />
on Canadian Unity (<strong>the</strong> Pépin-Robarts Report). 3 It attempted to tackle<br />
matters previously left as abeyances, <strong>and</strong> well crafted <strong>and</strong> drafted though it<br />
was, it ran headlong into <strong>the</strong> problem of what abeyances to avoid or address.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> Task Force report became a “political orphan” 4 <strong>and</strong> was upstaged <strong>and</strong><br />
contradicted by Pierre Trudeau’s single-minded <strong>and</strong> consistent devotion to<br />
a different set of principles. His determination to undermine Quebec<br />
nationalists <strong>and</strong> to avoid confronting, head on, <strong>the</strong> deepest abeyance of all,<br />
namely <strong>the</strong> recognition of a special role <strong>and</strong> place for Quebec, led to<br />
64
Turning a Blind Eye:<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Abeyances <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian Experience<br />
changes that have had <strong>the</strong> effect of fur<strong>the</strong>r isolating Quebec <strong>and</strong> of raising<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r abeyances from <strong>the</strong>ir slumber. 5<br />
• <strong>The</strong> Trudeau vision has taken deep root <strong>and</strong> is now protected, in ways that<br />
were not anticipated, by <strong>the</strong> provisions of <strong>the</strong> amending formulae, by <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms, by a newly provincialized referendum<br />
process, by <strong>the</strong> intractable <strong>and</strong> symbolic nature of <strong>the</strong> issues, <strong>and</strong> by <strong>the</strong><br />
ways in which <strong>the</strong>y have become linked. Our abeyances have become<br />
matters of public debate; competing visions struggle to emerge victorious;<br />
one principle leads on to ano<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
It is concluded that <strong>the</strong>re is but slim hope that <strong>the</strong> abeyances that have been<br />
made <strong>the</strong> subject of so much debate can be put to rest. <strong>The</strong> rejections of <strong>the</strong><br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Charlottetown Accords are proof that Canadians have been<br />
unable to agree on fundamental principles: our search for clarity has breached<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>’s abeyances, exposed its anomalies, created new problems<br />
<strong>and</strong> shown our unwillingness to retreat into <strong>the</strong> ambiguous safety of<br />
constitutional uncertainty even when given <strong>the</strong> chance to do so. Our abeyances<br />
are in public view, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> referendum process recently utilized seems<br />
inherently unsuited to <strong>the</strong> avoidance or resolution of longst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong><br />
complex “gaps of unsettlement.”<br />
Macro-<strong>Constitution</strong>al Politics<br />
Our <strong>Constitution</strong> is rife with well-known contradictions <strong>and</strong> incongruities.<br />
Parliamentary sovereignty <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> conventions of cabinet government sit<br />
uneasily with federalism <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>s for such things as Senate reform (along<br />
U.S. lines). Binationalism <strong>and</strong> dualism confront notions of provincial equality,<br />
multi-culturalism <strong>and</strong> founding peoples. Dem<strong>and</strong>s for <strong>the</strong> entrenchment of<br />
difference blindness clash with dem<strong>and</strong>s for difference valorization <strong>and</strong><br />
recognition. 6 <strong>The</strong> equality of citizens contends with collective <strong>and</strong> group<br />
rights; liberty <strong>and</strong> community, constitutionalism <strong>and</strong> communitarianism,<br />
collide. 7 Recent court cases raise questions about <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>and</strong><br />
fairness of <strong>the</strong> system of representation. Perhaps, above all, as Peter Russell<br />
pointed out in his Presidential Address to <strong>the</strong> Canadian Political Science<br />
Association in 1990, we cannot decide where sovereignty resides <strong>and</strong> how it is<br />
to be exercised:<br />
Canadians have not yet constituted <strong>the</strong>mselves a sovereign people.<br />
So deep are <strong>the</strong>ir current differences on fundamental questions of<br />
political justice <strong>and</strong> collective identity that Canadians may now be<br />
incapable of acting toge<strong>the</strong>r as a sovereign people. 8<br />
To say all of this is merely to belabour <strong>the</strong> obvious; we have been deeply<br />
divided on almost every conceivable constitutional issue. It is not that we are<br />
short of answers <strong>and</strong> expert opinion. Our best <strong>and</strong> brightest have laboured for a<br />
whole generation on <strong>the</strong>se problems. One could argue that Canadian political<br />
science as a discipline has been distorted by <strong>the</strong> pull (<strong>and</strong> lure) of constitutional<br />
analysis <strong>and</strong> debate. Political scientists have been drawn to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
like moths to a flame.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re have been numerous wonderfully perceptive <strong>and</strong> critical commentaries.<br />
<strong>The</strong> MacDonald Royal Commission alone saw <strong>the</strong> production of over seventy<br />
volumes of research studies. Surely we have to recognize that it is not for lack<br />
of brainpower, patriotism, money, time or effort that we have reached such an<br />
extraordinary impasse which everyone still strives to solve in his/her own way<br />
65
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
<strong>and</strong> to such little effect? Surely no o<strong>the</strong>r country can have undergone such a<br />
rigorous yet unproductive national examination by its political scientists <strong>and</strong><br />
constitutional lawyers?<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r countries have spent a long time examining certain facets of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
constitution. Australia established a <strong>Constitution</strong>al Convention (in 1973) <strong>and</strong> a<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Commission (in 1985) whose labours have brought forth<br />
referendum proposals, some of <strong>the</strong>m successful. However, <strong>the</strong> latest batch<br />
recently went down to resounding defeat. Britain has long discussed electoral<br />
<strong>and</strong> parliamentary reform. Yet <strong>the</strong>se matters are as nothing compared to <strong>the</strong><br />
efforts we have made. It has been a preoccupation for our political scientists,<br />
our political elites, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> country generally. <strong>The</strong> point is, when we put our<br />
ongoing “macro-constitutional” crises into perspective, it is not hard to<br />
underst<strong>and</strong> why agreement has been so difficult to reach:<br />
Macro-constitutional politics is distinguished in two ways from<br />
ordinary or micro-constitutional politics. First, macro-constitutional<br />
politics goes beyond disputing <strong>the</strong> events of specific constitutional<br />
proposals <strong>and</strong> addresses <strong>the</strong> very nature of <strong>the</strong> political community on<br />
which <strong>the</strong> constitution is to be based ... precisely because of <strong>the</strong><br />
fundamental nature of <strong>the</strong> dispute ... macro-constitutional politics is<br />
exceptionally emotional <strong>and</strong> intense. 9<br />
Who or what is to blame? An intransigent Quebec led by professional <strong>and</strong><br />
bureaucratic elites would probably top <strong>the</strong> list. It would be followed by an<br />
obdurate, anti-nationalist Trudeau, along with self-aggr<strong>and</strong>izing provincial<br />
barons <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir courtiers. Or we could blame <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>rs of Confederation, <strong>the</strong><br />
BNA Act, <strong>the</strong> decentralizing actions of <strong>the</strong> imperial Judicial Committee of <strong>the</strong><br />
Privy Council, <strong>the</strong> lack of cohesion <strong>and</strong> balance in Section 91 <strong>and</strong> Section 92 of<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act of 1867, <strong>and</strong> more recently, <strong>the</strong> contradictions inherent in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act 1982, <strong>the</strong> workings of executive federalism, a lack of<br />
leadership, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> vagaries of fortuna. <strong>The</strong>re is clearly no shortage of<br />
c<strong>and</strong>idates for <strong>the</strong> Governor-General’s Scapegoat of <strong>the</strong> Year awards.<br />
<strong>The</strong> problem with any or all of <strong>the</strong>se explanations, or with <strong>the</strong> view that it is<br />
simply <strong>the</strong> cumulative weight of such issues that now presses down upon us, is<br />
that this is still to assume that we can (a) identify <strong>the</strong> problems <strong>and</strong> (b) find a<br />
solution to what ails us. Not all have presumed this to be so. As usual, a<br />
prescient Alan Cairns noted in 1970 that “cryptically we might say that <strong>the</strong><br />
constitution has not failed us, so much as we, by our inadequate underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />
of its living nature, have failed it.” 10 To this he later added, when commenting<br />
on <strong>the</strong> spate of proposals that emerged in <strong>the</strong> late 1970s, that “<strong>the</strong> patient may<br />
stagger on in a kind of half life for a long time to come. Not only is <strong>the</strong>re yet no<br />
cure. <strong>The</strong>re is also no easy way to die.” 11 Perhaps we have loved not wisely but<br />
too well. We have not been content to let matters lie, <strong>and</strong> we may, ironically,<br />
have done far too much.<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Abeyances<br />
A recent provocative <strong>and</strong> powerful work by <strong>the</strong> British scholar Michael Foley<br />
casts light on our situation, <strong>and</strong> may help explain why constitutional peace <strong>and</strong><br />
quiet have been impossible to achieve. A reading of Foley’s aptly titled <strong>The</strong><br />
Silence of <strong>Constitution</strong>s12 does not tell us what we should do, it tells us instead<br />
why what we have been doing has not succeeded, <strong>and</strong> what we should, in fact,<br />
not do. It is <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>sis of this paper that Foley is correct in this key<br />
66
Turning a Blind Eye:<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Abeyances <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian Experience<br />
respect—mature <strong>and</strong> workable constitutions contain abeyances which one<br />
approaches <strong>and</strong> disinters at one’s peril. We have been, <strong>and</strong> are, digging up <strong>the</strong><br />
entire graveyard <strong>and</strong> one doubts that <strong>the</strong>re is an abeyance left unturned.<br />
So what are abeyances, <strong>and</strong> why are <strong>the</strong>y so important? <strong>The</strong>y are, in effect,<br />
holes or gaps in a constitution. <strong>The</strong>y are areas to be avoided at all costs. One<br />
blunders into an abeyance only to retreat as quickly <strong>and</strong> quietly as possible.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y are constitutional quicks<strong>and</strong>. <strong>The</strong>y exist, says Foley, in a sort of “twilight<br />
zone,” in an “intermediate layer of obscurity” between <strong>the</strong> micro workings of<br />
uncodified rules <strong>and</strong> customs <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> macro world of recognized rules <strong>and</strong><br />
constitutional conventions. Without this layer of obscurity a constitution may<br />
well cease to function. <strong>The</strong>y remain unwritten <strong>and</strong> obscure because:<br />
It is recognized that any attempt to define <strong>the</strong>m would be not merely<br />
unnecessary or impossible, but positively misguided <strong>and</strong> even<br />
potentially threatening to <strong>the</strong> constitution itself. This is because such<br />
“underst<strong>and</strong>ings” only remain understood as long as <strong>the</strong>y remain<br />
sufficiently obscure to allow <strong>the</strong>m to retain an approximate<br />
appearance of internal coherence <strong>and</strong> clarity, while at <strong>the</strong> same time<br />
accommodating several potentially conflicting <strong>and</strong> quite unresolved<br />
points of issue. <strong>The</strong> resolution of conflict in such cases is that of<br />
suspended irresolution—ei<strong>the</strong>r consciously secured or, far more<br />
probably, unconsciously <strong>and</strong> unintentionally acquired. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
packages of aggregated positions are preserved by studied<br />
inattention. <strong>The</strong>y may include contradictions, tensions, anomalies,<br />
<strong>and</strong> inequities, but <strong>the</strong> fragility <strong>and</strong>, at times, total illogicality of such<br />
packages are kept intact through a convention of non-exposure, of<br />
strategic oversight, <strong>and</strong> of complicity in delusion—in short, through<br />
an instinctive reversion to not breaking ranks when confronted with<br />
<strong>the</strong> constitutional equivalents of <strong>the</strong> emperor’s clo<strong>the</strong>s. 13<br />
This passage should strike a responsive chord in many a Canadian scholar’s<br />
heart. It is, <strong>the</strong>refore, not enough to think of such abeyances as merely<br />
encompassing <strong>the</strong> unwritten parts of a constitution. <strong>The</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard, first year<br />
undergraduate explanation of unwritten (i.e. British) <strong>and</strong> written (i.e.<br />
American) constitutions, along with a hybrid (Canada) does not suffice. In <strong>the</strong><br />
first place, such distinctions between written <strong>and</strong> unwritten constitutions do<br />
not in <strong>the</strong>mselves make much sense anyway <strong>and</strong> have long been discarded.<br />
Secondly, conventions are not abeyances, as Foley uses <strong>the</strong> term.<br />
Conventions, as discussed by Heard in his recent book on <strong>the</strong> subject, can be<br />
divided into categories which range from <strong>the</strong> fundamental conventions<br />
“supported by general agreement on <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>and</strong> value of <strong>the</strong> principle<br />
involved” through meso-conventions <strong>and</strong> semi-conventions to infraconventions,<br />
“whose existence may be hotly contested.” Finally <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
embryonic conventions, such as <strong>the</strong> non use of <strong>the</strong> notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing clause.<br />
Below all of <strong>the</strong>se will lie usages. 14<br />
It may be true that some of <strong>the</strong>se conventions represent <strong>the</strong> tip of <strong>the</strong> abeyance<br />
iceberg, as is <strong>the</strong> case with those surrounding parliamentary sovereignty. Yet<br />
<strong>the</strong> point is that we can argue about <strong>the</strong> strength of specific conventions<br />
without calling into question <strong>the</strong> larger issues which lurk in <strong>the</strong> shadows<br />
behind <strong>the</strong>m. It should also be noted that mere ambiguity does not in itself<br />
constitute an abeyance, useful adjunct though it may be. <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
<strong>and</strong> Freedoms is, for example, ambiguous in some areas, but o<strong>the</strong>r areas it<br />
67
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
avoids entirely. Abeyances are thus NOT recognizable rules or compromises,<br />
nor are <strong>the</strong>y in any sense legally precise notions. <strong>The</strong>y amount to “strategic<br />
gaps” kept in place by a sort of deterrence <strong>the</strong>ory, namely <strong>the</strong> knowledge that to<br />
subject <strong>the</strong>m to public view <strong>and</strong> open debate is to court disaster, for <strong>the</strong>y are too<br />
intractable <strong>and</strong> dangerous. If <strong>the</strong>y do become <strong>the</strong> subject of conflict, Foley<br />
argues that <strong>the</strong>y are “not so much accompanied by an intense constitutional<br />
crisis, <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong> essence of that crisis.” 15<br />
To students of Canadian politics, Foley’s <strong>the</strong>sis may offer some important<br />
insights. First of all, it can give us hope. Even those constitutions that are<br />
seemingly well worked out, <strong>and</strong> agreed upon, are not. In Canada, <strong>the</strong> United<br />
States’ <strong>Constitution</strong> is often held up as <strong>the</strong> very essence of constitutionalism. It<br />
is seen as clear, binding, consistent <strong>and</strong> democratic. Not so, says Foley:<br />
In reality, <strong>the</strong> U.S. <strong>Constitution</strong> is replete with anomalies, gaps, <strong>and</strong><br />
areas of utter unsettlement...judicial consistency is unknown, final<br />
authoritative judgements are unavailable. 16<br />
It leaves unresolved <strong>and</strong> unclear <strong>the</strong> issues surrounding popular sovereignty<br />
<strong>and</strong> judicial review, <strong>and</strong> it does not explain <strong>the</strong> mysteries (<strong>and</strong> myths) of<br />
Presidential power <strong>and</strong> how this is to be kept in check by <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r parts of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>. To Foley, it is a mark of maturity that in both Britain <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
United States <strong>the</strong>re is a desire to leave such matters in a state of “settled<br />
unsettlement,” <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong>re is a deep conservatism to constitutional practice.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> British case it may be due to historical traumas, such as <strong>the</strong> Civil War,<br />
<strong>and</strong> a collective acceptance of “tradition.” In <strong>the</strong> United States, <strong>the</strong> Supreme<br />
Court has played a key role in working “creatively with ambiguity.” 17<br />
One can hope that we, too, have tolerated our abeyances: it would seem in <strong>the</strong><br />
cautious Canadian character to have done so. This is what appears to have<br />
happened until well into this century. 18 We proceeded cautiously <strong>and</strong> slowly.<br />
We appear to have recognized, implicitly, that a federal system by its very<br />
nature will embody a changing conception of roles <strong>and</strong> powers, of identities<br />
<strong>and</strong> loyalties. This federal conception, especially if it embodies assumptions<br />
about unstated prerogatives which apply to some but not all <strong>the</strong> federal units,<br />
cannot be put down on paper. A central, crucial, abeyance was, <strong>and</strong> is, <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional definition of Quebec’s place within <strong>the</strong> Canadian federal state.<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r was <strong>and</strong> is <strong>the</strong> assumed equality of <strong>the</strong> provinces. <strong>The</strong>se could not <strong>and</strong><br />
cannot be written down in such a way that <strong>the</strong>y are dealt with satisfactorily. To<br />
have attempted to do so ran <strong>the</strong> risk of picking one constitutional principle over<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r, of freezing, at a particular moment, <strong>the</strong> received constitutional<br />
wisdom of <strong>the</strong> time, <strong>and</strong> of creating new <strong>and</strong> unperceived incompatibilities.<br />
Amendment<br />
A quintessentially Canadian example of a problem behind which abeyances<br />
lurked was our amending formula, <strong>and</strong> lack <strong>the</strong>reof until 1982. Clearly, most<br />
federations settle this at <strong>the</strong> outset. To those ga<strong>the</strong>red at Philadelphia, <strong>the</strong> need<br />
for a new amending process was clear, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> process that emerged clearly<br />
embodied principles that rendered it both national <strong>and</strong> federal, (although it was<br />
still held, as Calhoun was later to argue, to leave unanswered ultimate<br />
questions of sovereignty).<br />
Australia <strong>and</strong> Switzerl<strong>and</strong> likewise paid attention to <strong>the</strong> principles behind <strong>the</strong><br />
amending process. At a series of conventions, which took almost a decade,<br />
68
Turning a Blind Eye:<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Abeyances <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian Experience<br />
Australians devised an amending formula which, it was assumed, would prove<br />
flexible, simple, democratic <strong>and</strong> federal. 19 In Switzerl<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> drafting<br />
committee of <strong>the</strong> 1848 formula (still <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> revisions of 1874 <strong>and</strong><br />
1891), said:<br />
<strong>The</strong> committee proposes to render <strong>the</strong> constitution very easily<br />
amendable because a truly sovereign people must be able to change<br />
its fundamental law whenever it is so inclined ... in order to come into<br />
force, <strong>the</strong> Federal <strong>Constitution</strong> must be accepted by a majority of<br />
Swiss citizenry <strong>and</strong> by <strong>the</strong> majority of <strong>the</strong> Cantons. 20<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian situation was completely different. <strong>The</strong> initial procedural<br />
question was whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong> Federal Cabinet could submit its request<br />
directly to Britain, without consulting <strong>and</strong> obtaining <strong>the</strong> consent of <strong>the</strong> national<br />
Parliament. What we got was an amending process that worked quite well in<br />
spite of itself. It was viewed in terms of political expediency. Jennifer Smith<br />
comments that:<br />
... as far as ratification <strong>and</strong> amendment were concerned <strong>the</strong> real<br />
question in both instances was <strong>the</strong> consent required domestically<br />
before <strong>the</strong> British parliament could be requested to act. 21<br />
Amendments were made but we left unresolved <strong>the</strong> debate over sovereignty<br />
which <strong>the</strong> amending problem created. As one shrewd American commentator<br />
has noted:<br />
When <strong>the</strong>re is no agreement on <strong>the</strong> proper allocation of authority, or<br />
(more fundamentally) no agreement on <strong>the</strong> desired level of unity<br />
within a society, as has been <strong>the</strong> case in Canada, agreement on a<br />
wholly satisfactory amendment process becomes impossible ... until<br />
a substantial consensus is reached on <strong>the</strong> underlying question of<br />
nationhood, no satisfactory agreement can be reached on a process of<br />
amendment. 22<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian system changed in some dramatic ways not via amendments but<br />
by judicial interpretation <strong>and</strong> informal federal-provincial agreements. We<br />
seemed to be verifying <strong>the</strong> point made in Livingston’s classic work <strong>Federalism</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change. 23 His assumption that federalism is “a function<br />
not of constitutions but of societies” is well known. Accompanying this is his<br />
view that societies employ what he calls “instrumentalities” to serve <strong>the</strong> needs<br />
of <strong>the</strong>ir diversity. <strong>The</strong>se instrumentalities can be procedures, institutions <strong>and</strong><br />
conventions but he also adds to <strong>the</strong> list concepts, habits <strong>and</strong> attitudes, all of<br />
which serve to “articulate <strong>and</strong> protect <strong>the</strong> diversities that constitute <strong>the</strong> psychosociological<br />
basis of <strong>the</strong> federal community.” 24 Our instrumentalities were<br />
protecting our abeyances <strong>and</strong> our lack of an amending formula.<br />
It was not until <strong>the</strong> aftermath of <strong>the</strong> Commonwealth Conference of 1926 that<br />
we launched <strong>the</strong> first of a series of federal-provincial conferences which<br />
discussed <strong>the</strong> amending problem. <strong>The</strong> 1950 conference actually managed to<br />
reach unanimous agreement of <strong>the</strong> division of <strong>the</strong> constitution into six different<br />
categories each with different rules for change—surely a Canadian approach if<br />
ever <strong>the</strong>re was one.<br />
69
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
In <strong>the</strong>se debates, we were trying to skirt our abeyances <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> questions that<br />
came with <strong>the</strong>m: did we subscribe to <strong>the</strong> compact <strong>the</strong>ory; to what extent were<br />
<strong>the</strong> provinces sovereign; should Quebec be treated differently; should any<br />
single province have a constitutional veto; could regional assent be substituted<br />
for a provincial approach; was <strong>the</strong>re to be any popular ratification; who<br />
initiated <strong>the</strong> amending process; could <strong>the</strong>re be opting out; must <strong>the</strong>re be <strong>the</strong><br />
same rules for all; how were we to reconcile popular sovereignty <strong>and</strong><br />
federalism? Thus ra<strong>the</strong>r than arguing about <strong>the</strong> substance of future<br />
amendments, <strong>the</strong> focus switched to <strong>the</strong> process itself. It became “<strong>the</strong> essence of<br />
<strong>the</strong> crisis,” <strong>and</strong> we were subjected “to a series of federal-provincial<br />
conferences which, like <strong>the</strong> woes inflicted on sinners by <strong>the</strong> God of <strong>the</strong> Old<br />
Testament, have lasted unto <strong>the</strong> third <strong>and</strong> fourth generations.” 25<br />
“A Diversity in Ignorance of Itself”<br />
A notable effort to tackle our disinterred <strong>and</strong> emergent abeyances<br />
simultaneously was made in 1979 by <strong>the</strong> Task Force on Canadian Unity report<br />
entitled A Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r. Better known as <strong>the</strong> Pépin-Robarts Report after its<br />
two co-chairs, it represented an inter-connected <strong>and</strong> comprehensive approach.<br />
Even its critics saw it as well written, succinct <strong>and</strong> willing to tackle deep-seated<br />
problems. Ideas from it, <strong>and</strong> individuals associated with it, have continued to<br />
play a significant part in our on going constitutional saga.<br />
It attempted to deal with dualism, regionalism, <strong>the</strong> functional distribution of<br />
power <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>the</strong> national government.<br />
We have tried in this report to answer three questions: How do we<br />
secure <strong>the</strong> fuller expression of duality in all <strong>the</strong> spheres to which it<br />
relates? How do we accommodate more satisfactorily <strong>the</strong> forces of<br />
regionalism that are altering <strong>the</strong> face of Canadian society? How do<br />
we make <strong>the</strong> principle of sharing an “operational value” in our<br />
country, <strong>and</strong> within <strong>and</strong> between our governments, so that duality <strong>and</strong><br />
regionalism <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r features of Canadian life are given<br />
appropriate recognition? 26<br />
It thus came face to face with at least <strong>the</strong> following abeyances:<br />
• <strong>the</strong> constitutional recognition of dualism <strong>and</strong> Quebec’s distinctiveness;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> redistribution of powers;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> need for a legitimizing amending formula in which Quebec’s consent<br />
was required;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> problem of provincial equality <strong>and</strong> symmetry;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> clash between federal <strong>and</strong> parliamentary principles;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> recognition of individual as well as group rights;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> clash between judicial constitutional supremacy <strong>and</strong> democratic<br />
control.<br />
In some respects it appeared to tackle <strong>the</strong>se problems head on. It said of<br />
Quebec that:<br />
70<br />
We support <strong>the</strong> efforts of <strong>the</strong> Quebec provincial government <strong>and</strong> of<br />
<strong>the</strong> people of Quebec to ensure <strong>the</strong> predominance of <strong>the</strong> French<br />
language <strong>and</strong> culture in that province. Quebec is distinctive <strong>and</strong><br />
should, within a viable Canada, have <strong>the</strong> power necessary to protect<br />
<strong>and</strong> develop its distinctive character; any political solution short if<br />
this would lead to <strong>the</strong> rupture of Canada. 27
Turning a Blind Eye:<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Abeyances <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian Experience<br />
Thus, language policy was to be a provincial matter, counterbalanced by<br />
French/English educational opportunities “where numbers warrant” <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
availability of federal services in both languages.<br />
It dealt with <strong>the</strong> parliamentary/federal problem by proposing a totally<br />
restructured Senate modelled on <strong>the</strong> Bundestag, <strong>and</strong> partial proportional<br />
representation for <strong>the</strong> Commons. <strong>The</strong> membership <strong>and</strong> powers of <strong>the</strong> Council<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Federation—as <strong>the</strong> restructured Senate would be called—were set out<br />
clearly; it was to comprise a maximum of 60 delegates “acting under<br />
instruction” from <strong>the</strong> provinces. <strong>The</strong>se were bold <strong>and</strong> sweeping<br />
recommendations that would have had a profound effect. <strong>The</strong> same could be<br />
said of <strong>the</strong>ir approach to <strong>the</strong> amending problem, popular sovereignty<br />
requirements, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Quebec “veto.” Along with passage by <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
Parliament, a four region referendum was proposed, Quebec being one of <strong>the</strong><br />
regions.<br />
Thus, abeyances were tackled in a way that saw <strong>the</strong> proposed solutions closely<br />
linked toge<strong>the</strong>r. At <strong>the</strong> same time, it can be argued that even Pépin-Robarts &<br />
Co. tried to skirt or fudge some of <strong>the</strong> central issues, <strong>and</strong> this was to get <strong>the</strong>m<br />
into hot water. In particular, <strong>the</strong>y tried to defuse <strong>the</strong> asymmetry versus<br />
provincial equality problem, <strong>and</strong> special status for Quebec, by allotting:<br />
... to all provinces powers in <strong>the</strong> areas needed by Quebec to maintain<br />
its distinctive culture <strong>and</strong> heritage, but to do so in a manner which<br />
would enable <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provinces, if <strong>the</strong>y so wished, not to exercise<br />
<strong>the</strong>se responsibilities <strong>and</strong> instead leave <strong>the</strong>m to Ottawa. <strong>The</strong>re are two<br />
methods for achieving this: to place <strong>the</strong>se matters under concurrent<br />
jurisdiction with provincial paramountcy, thus leaving provinces<br />
with <strong>the</strong> option whe<strong>the</strong>r to exercise <strong>the</strong>ir overriding power in <strong>the</strong>se<br />
fields; <strong>and</strong> to provide in <strong>the</strong> constitution a procedure for <strong>the</strong><br />
intergovernmental delegation of legislative powers. In our view both<br />
methods should be used. 28<br />
This particular provision illustrates clearly a desire to see how things will work<br />
out (<strong>and</strong> should sound familiar to us now!). <strong>The</strong>re was a similar vagueness in<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir recommendations for a Declaration of Rights which was to include “<strong>the</strong><br />
usual political, legal, economic <strong>and</strong> egalitarian rights.” Such individual <strong>and</strong><br />
collective rights would have to be those “on which <strong>the</strong> central <strong>and</strong> provincial<br />
governments are in agreement.” Yet ano<strong>the</strong>r example of issue avoidance can<br />
be found in <strong>the</strong> discussion of native rights: <strong>the</strong>re is no mention here of native<br />
sovereignty, inherent rights or any of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r dem<strong>and</strong>s now made.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Report’s wise disinclination to provide clarity <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> corollary that much<br />
remained to be worked out was, not surprisingly, seen as a major weakness in<br />
<strong>the</strong> document. It could thus be attacked for its concerted attempt to entrench<br />
intra-state federalism, popular sovereignty, <strong>and</strong> a special place for Quebec<br />
<strong>and</strong>, at <strong>the</strong> same time, for its “smorgasbord” of principles <strong>and</strong> criteria, <strong>and</strong> its<br />
p<strong>and</strong>ering to Quebec nationalism <strong>and</strong> regionalism.<br />
Alan Cairns, in a trenchant <strong>and</strong> harsh criticism of <strong>the</strong> overall Report, argued<br />
that <strong>the</strong> provision for concurrency <strong>and</strong> delegation noted above “is capable of<br />
producing two anti<strong>the</strong>tical outcomes at <strong>the</strong> opposite ends of <strong>the</strong> spectrum <strong>and</strong><br />
anything in between.” 29 In o<strong>the</strong>r words, we could have found ourselves, in<br />
future, with an extraordinarily decentralized system due to our desire to paper<br />
over <strong>the</strong> Quebec problem. Cairns also noted, amongst o<strong>the</strong>r things, that <strong>the</strong><br />
71
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Report stressed “what divides us,” it “lacked <strong>the</strong> subtlety necessary to h<strong>and</strong>le<br />
<strong>the</strong> complexities” of <strong>the</strong> national question, it utilized an “ahistorical<br />
approach,” <strong>and</strong> it suffered from “hesitation <strong>and</strong> embarrassment” on <strong>the</strong><br />
question of national identity.<br />
One cannot help but feel sorry for <strong>the</strong> authors. <strong>The</strong>y were trying to tackle<br />
abeyances that had haunted us for years. <strong>The</strong>y were prisoners of a climate of<br />
opinion that was heavily provincialist. First Ministers’ Conferences had come<br />
into <strong>the</strong>ir own. Premiers strutted <strong>the</strong>ir hour upon <strong>the</strong> stage, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> entire<br />
Pépin-Robarts Report was premised on <strong>the</strong> notion that with respect to powers<br />
<strong>the</strong>re must be “equality of status of <strong>the</strong> central <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> provincial orders of<br />
government.” 30<br />
In Pépin-Robarts, a revised <strong>and</strong> subtle version of <strong>the</strong> compact <strong>the</strong>ory had<br />
wrestled with <strong>the</strong> questions of inter- <strong>and</strong> intra-state federalism, pan-<br />
Canadianism, dualism, individual rights <strong>and</strong> founding nations. Whe<strong>the</strong>r or not<br />
Pépin-Robarts was a noble effort doomed to failure, a constitution that could<br />
have grown <strong>and</strong> matured but was strangled at birth, or a vision that was fatally<br />
flawed <strong>and</strong> rife with contradictions, became irrelevant. <strong>The</strong> Unity Task Force<br />
had tried—how it had tried—to solve <strong>the</strong>se problems imaginatively <strong>and</strong><br />
constructively, in <strong>the</strong> light of socio-political realities as well as constitutional<br />
principles. Certainly, if one considers what has happened since <strong>the</strong>ir report<br />
appeared, it is difficult to argue that we have done any better.<br />
A <strong>Constitution</strong> with Crystal Clear Principles<br />
When Pierre Trudeau returned to power in 1980, Pépin-Robarts, <strong>and</strong> its search<br />
for a “third option,” lay neglected <strong>and</strong> disparaged. Trudeau’s agenda was very<br />
different. It was to be an irony, a paradox, that Trudeau <strong>the</strong> pragmatist—<strong>the</strong><br />
cool, clear, cerebral anti-nationalist, <strong>the</strong> defender of incrementalism <strong>and</strong> of <strong>the</strong><br />
need to establish our national identity so that it could accommodate<br />
Quebec—should end up pushing through an amending formula <strong>and</strong> a charter<br />
that forced our abeyances into <strong>the</strong> open <strong>and</strong> created new <strong>and</strong> fundamental<br />
tensions in <strong>the</strong> state.<br />
Trudeau was ra<strong>the</strong>r like <strong>the</strong> Charles I portrayed by Foley. Trudeau also had a<br />
strict legality on his side, had little regard for <strong>the</strong> legislature, was not prepared<br />
to let sleeping issues lie <strong>and</strong> was convinced, not without reason, that his logic<br />
<strong>and</strong> clarity of vision were superior to those of his opponents. In fairness, he had<br />
to act as a result of <strong>the</strong> promises made during <strong>the</strong> referendum of 1980. Once<br />
Quebec had pushed its way out of its own protective cocoon <strong>and</strong> had seen itself<br />
as an actor on a larger stage (to mix metaphors) notions such as abeyances or<br />
“stops in <strong>the</strong> mind” became almost impossible to h<strong>and</strong>le.<br />
But now <strong>the</strong> Quebec abeyance <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> amending abeyance became <strong>the</strong> focal<br />
point for what Foley has called o<strong>the</strong>r “deeply embedded disjunctions.” A<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>ned West, led by a powerful Alberta premier, was willing to fight for<br />
provincial equality as were o<strong>the</strong>r premiers. Trudeau was adamantly committed<br />
to a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights, to official bilingualism, to streng<strong>the</strong>ning Federal<br />
institutions <strong>and</strong> to a recognition of multiculturalism. His desire for<br />
constitutional coherence, his inability <strong>and</strong> unwillingness to accept <strong>the</strong> coexistence<br />
of (seemingly) irreconcilable positions, <strong>and</strong> his acceptance of<br />
provincial equality, constituted <strong>the</strong> anti<strong>the</strong>sis of a reliance on obfuscation <strong>and</strong><br />
avoidance. In his criticism of this approach, Guy <strong>La</strong>Forest uses “Foleyian”<br />
terminology when he argues that:<br />
72
Turning a Blind Eye:<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Abeyances <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian Experience<br />
My point here, simply put, is that <strong>the</strong>se checks, ambiguities, <strong>and</strong><br />
blurred sovereignties between visions were necessary to <strong>the</strong><br />
flourishing of complex federalism in Canada. When all this is<br />
discarded in favour of a constitution with crystal clear principles...<br />
<strong>the</strong> very nature of our federalism becomes threatened <strong>and</strong> so does<br />
Canada. 31<br />
Many of <strong>the</strong>se issues were not new, but this time <strong>the</strong>re was a difference; <strong>the</strong>re<br />
was a Prime Minister willing to go it alone, a federal government able to claim<br />
its own Quebec m<strong>and</strong>ate, a separatist government in Quebec emasculated by<br />
<strong>the</strong> referendum of 1980, <strong>and</strong>, ga<strong>the</strong>ring force on <strong>the</strong> fringes of <strong>the</strong> debate, a<br />
growing assembly of new constitutional players pushing for change if <strong>the</strong><br />
opportunity arose.<br />
Would we have been better off opting for as limited a constitutional package as<br />
possible? Was <strong>the</strong>re a chance in <strong>the</strong> autumn <strong>and</strong> winter of 1981-82 that we<br />
could have muddled through <strong>and</strong> tolerated ambiguity? It must be admitted that,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n <strong>and</strong> now, <strong>the</strong>re is a strong case to be made for <strong>the</strong> view that constitution<br />
making does indeed require a st<strong>and</strong> on principles, for some fundamental<br />
questions cannot be ignored.<br />
But we ended up with constitutional arrangements that have made our<br />
abeyances all too apparent. Behind <strong>the</strong> oddities of <strong>the</strong> amending formulae,<br />
such as <strong>the</strong> extent of <strong>the</strong> unanimity rule, <strong>the</strong> acknowledged provincial right of<br />
rescission, <strong>the</strong> three-year time limit <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> inability to co-ordinate legislative<br />
amendment or approval, lie even larger questions. 32<br />
It could, perhaps, be argued that in 1982 certain abeyances were left alone.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re was no attempt to define Quebec’s role <strong>and</strong> place in <strong>the</strong> scheme of<br />
things. <strong>The</strong> operation of First Ministers’ Conferences was left unclear. Native<br />
claims to sovereignty were ignored. Citizens were not given a constitutional<br />
role. Never<strong>the</strong>less, we still ended up with changes that led to Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong><br />
to Charlottetown, <strong>and</strong> which juxtaposed our former abeyances in ways that<br />
make <strong>the</strong>m extremely difficult to h<strong>and</strong>le.<br />
Unsettled Settlement<br />
What can be said in conclusion? Is <strong>the</strong>re hope that we can take some of our<br />
abeyances off <strong>the</strong> table? <strong>The</strong> Trudeau legacy has been extraordinary, <strong>and</strong> his<br />
view of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> has taken hold. His interventions in defence of his<br />
endeavours have been decisive. Well-known scholars can now proclaim that<br />
<strong>the</strong> end of our constitutional journey is in sight:<br />
Canada is, de facto, now a republic; <strong>the</strong> people of Canada are<br />
sovereign. Sooner or later, by law or by convention, Canada’s<br />
constitution will reflect both those realities de jure. So too will its<br />
legislators <strong>and</strong> courts. 33<br />
To argue thus assumes that our deepest abeyances are now being laid to rest:<br />
like old soldiers, <strong>the</strong>y will just fade away. Our political <strong>and</strong> constitutional<br />
culture will have changed; even Quebec, in this view, could become<br />
“charterized.” <strong>The</strong> new, demarcated, ascertainable, liberal-democratic rules of<br />
<strong>the</strong> constitutional <strong>and</strong> political game are seen as in place, buttressed by<br />
referendum-rooted popular sovereignty <strong>and</strong> by <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> itself.<br />
73
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
This optimistic view does not accord with <strong>the</strong> recognition of <strong>the</strong> importance of<br />
abeyances. It can be argued that <strong>the</strong> failure of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>and</strong> Charlottetown<br />
Accords, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> referendum process itself, demonstrated clearly that we have<br />
not come to terms with <strong>the</strong> idea of <strong>the</strong> need for abeyances in a general sense, or<br />
with <strong>the</strong> specific, dormant dangers we have pushed <strong>and</strong> prodded out of <strong>the</strong><br />
interstitial constitutional caves where <strong>the</strong>y were hibernating.<br />
Let us remind ourselves that Foley’s <strong>the</strong>sis holds that gaps of significant<br />
constitutional unsettlement are marks of maturity <strong>and</strong> a source of considerable<br />
strength; that constitutional incoherence can be a positive <strong>and</strong> necessary value;<br />
that legal precision is less desirable than social consensus <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> willingness<br />
to turn a blind eye to our idiosyncrasies. <strong>Constitution</strong>al cowardice is a virtue:<br />
we live to fight ano<strong>the</strong>r day.<br />
Are we prepared <strong>and</strong> able to turn our backs on <strong>the</strong> very real <strong>and</strong> dangerous<br />
sources of conflict that have surfaced so dramatically since 1982? Do we have<br />
<strong>the</strong> social <strong>and</strong> political skills, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> leadership, to h<strong>and</strong>le our constitutional<br />
unsettlement? Will our institutional mechanisms permit us to change even if<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is widespread support for so doing?<br />
<strong>The</strong> attempt, in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, to constitutionalize Quebec’s<br />
distinctiveness, illustrates all of <strong>the</strong>se problems. Meech was an effort to go<br />
beyond de facto or implicit recognition34 that <strong>the</strong> two founding nations view<br />
“was <strong>the</strong> only form in which confederation would be ultimately acceptable to<br />
French Canada.” 35 Meech was an attempt to set it down on paper, <strong>and</strong> people<br />
wanted to know exactly what it meant. At <strong>the</strong> same time, it was raising an<br />
abeyance that was now symbolically tied to o<strong>the</strong>r intractable questions. In<br />
Patrick Monahan’s view:<br />
... (<strong>the</strong>) symbolic messages associated with <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause<br />
provide <strong>the</strong> most powerful explanation of its massive unpopularity<br />
outside of Quebec. 36<br />
Survey data on <strong>the</strong> October referendum now show that, once again, <strong>the</strong> most<br />
important issue, outside Quebec, was that Quebec was seen as getting too<br />
much. Inevitably, in Meech <strong>and</strong> Charlottetown, o<strong>the</strong>r abeyances came into<br />
play, particularly those surrounding <strong>the</strong> question of provincial equality,<br />
affecting both <strong>the</strong> amending formula, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposals for a Triple E Senate.<br />
Many seemed surprised to find out that raising what was seen as a straightforward<br />
federal principle, namely <strong>the</strong> political equality of disparate geopolitical<br />
units in a second house, trailed in its wake such a host of deep<br />
problems, old <strong>and</strong> new. Less of a surprise, perhaps, was <strong>the</strong> clash of principles<br />
surrounding who we are as citizens, <strong>and</strong> how we are to be treated, individually<br />
<strong>and</strong> collectively. <strong>The</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>se questions, too, were once abeyances is<br />
revealed by Charles Taylor’s comment that in this debate over what constitutes<br />
a liberal society “aspirations which are as such perfectly compatible come to<br />
be seen as deadly rivals.” 37<br />
<strong>The</strong> left has a great deal of difficulty coming to terms with <strong>the</strong>se issues38 <strong>and</strong>,<br />
on <strong>the</strong> right, in <strong>the</strong> shape of <strong>the</strong> Reform Party, one finds certitude. Populist<br />
diagnoses seem inherently intolerant of abeyances. When Preston Manning<br />
speaks of his “New Canada” he is talking of a country that will operate<br />
according to a few seemingly straightforward principles: we will all be equal;<br />
we will all be treated equally; <strong>the</strong>re will not be a need for hyphenated<br />
Canadianism; <strong>the</strong> provinces will be equal; <strong>and</strong> our institutions will be<br />
74
Turning a Blind Eye:<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Abeyances <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian Experience<br />
reformed. Manning’s populism seeks to find simple answers to complex<br />
problems, <strong>and</strong> prudence is not an adjective that comes to mind in this context.<br />
Populists dislike ambiguity <strong>and</strong> equivocation, <strong>and</strong> because of that <strong>the</strong>y do not<br />
want “suspended irresolution.” Supporters see in <strong>the</strong> Reform Party <strong>the</strong> answers<br />
to what bo<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>the</strong>m; <strong>the</strong>y want politicians to listen <strong>and</strong> be accountable to <strong>the</strong><br />
electorate, to stop p<strong>and</strong>ering to Quebec, <strong>and</strong> to stop wasting <strong>the</strong> taxpayers’<br />
money.<br />
Populism dem<strong>and</strong>s referendums, but because abeyances are “<strong>the</strong> product of<br />
long historical experience <strong>and</strong> accumulated practice of which <strong>the</strong> public is but<br />
dimly aware,” 39 <strong>the</strong>y are exceptionally difficult to deal with during a<br />
referendum campaign. <strong>The</strong> fact that a referendum was used would seem to be a<br />
vindication of <strong>the</strong> view that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> is an affair, ultimately, of citizens<br />
<strong>and</strong> not governments. It would thus seem to settle a longst<strong>and</strong>ing abeyance <strong>and</strong><br />
overturn <strong>the</strong> predominance of governments <strong>and</strong> of executive federalism<br />
established by <strong>the</strong> amending formulae. Matters are not this simple.<br />
<strong>The</strong> fundamental incompatibilities of <strong>the</strong> 1982 arrangements have not given<br />
way to clarity, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> referendum was, in certain key ways, not an act of<br />
national public affirmation; it was a new version of inter-state federalism in<br />
which provincialized communities, ra<strong>the</strong>r than governments, spoke for<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves. It was precipitated by pre-emptive referendum legislation in three<br />
provinces: Quebec, Alberta <strong>and</strong> British Columbia. It is no coincidence that<br />
<strong>the</strong>se three provinces soundly rejected <strong>the</strong> Accord. We tackled, in part, what<br />
Jennifer Smith has called <strong>the</strong> problem of constituting power: “Process—not<br />
any process, but one that embodies consent requirements—replaces<br />
sovereignty,” 40 (i.e., as <strong>the</strong> key issue). But what has been added is <strong>the</strong><br />
provincial equality abeyance in a new guise. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, if we are to use<br />
referendums in <strong>the</strong> future “how are we to avoid drawing abeyances into <strong>the</strong><br />
public debate? How do we avoid spelling out what we know cannot be spelled<br />
out?” 41 Our old mechanisms of elite accommodation were, it would appear, by<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir very nature inherently tolerant of abeyances. Consensus was to be<br />
produced due to a common desire to maintain <strong>the</strong> system <strong>and</strong> avoid undue<br />
fragmentation, whilst accommodating divergent interests <strong>and</strong> subcultures.<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al affairs were dealt with in an ordinary political way.<br />
Ra<strong>the</strong>r than being content with <strong>the</strong> virtues of “settled unsettlement,” we have<br />
got instead “unsettled settlement” of some things, <strong>and</strong> no settlement at all of a<br />
long list of o<strong>the</strong>r items, driven as <strong>the</strong>y are by political crises, values,<br />
personalities <strong>and</strong> great social <strong>and</strong> demographic change. While <strong>the</strong> rest of<br />
Canada’s values have been changing, in Quebec, in yet ano<strong>the</strong>r paradox,<br />
devotion to British traditions of representative government <strong>and</strong><br />
parliamentarianism have, if anything, increased. We have Quebec scholars<br />
who would normally “prefer specificity in constitutional matters” 42 now<br />
arguing that vagueness is desirable <strong>and</strong> that a clear vision is dangerous.<br />
Christian Dufour puts <strong>the</strong> point thus:<br />
Beyond <strong>the</strong> reality of <strong>the</strong> country, beyond <strong>the</strong> ideal, Canada is<br />
foundering in an idealism, in an ideology of <strong>the</strong> ideal, that is<br />
constraining <strong>and</strong> compulsory. This is not surprising: in politics<br />
idealism corresponds to losing touch with reality. It results from an<br />
inability to integrate some aspects of that reality. 43<br />
75
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
In sum, events from Pépin-Robarts to Charlottetown reveal how deep our<br />
“disjunctions” are (<strong>and</strong> even so, <strong>the</strong>re are still abeyances left untouched, such<br />
as those surrounding responsible government).<br />
To ask, in conclusion, whe<strong>the</strong>r we can get at least some of our key abeyances<br />
under control is to try to forecast <strong>the</strong> future. This is dangerous terrain. <strong>The</strong><br />
vagaries of <strong>the</strong> moment, <strong>and</strong> our own hopes <strong>and</strong> fears, can turn scholars into<br />
journalists; trying to gain a perspective on our past is difficult enough. Even so,<br />
if we accept <strong>the</strong> idea of abeyances, <strong>the</strong>ir role <strong>and</strong> crucial importance, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
usefulness of <strong>the</strong> concept in putting our macro-constitutional debate into a<br />
new, comparative perspective, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> question of how we are to h<strong>and</strong>le <strong>the</strong>m<br />
cannot be avoided.<br />
It may be that <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> referendum, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> process itself, have made<br />
us realize how far apart we are. We might come to take a more resolutely Tory<br />
view of our living, evolving <strong>Constitution</strong> with its areas of contradiction <strong>and</strong><br />
imprecision, although when we were given <strong>the</strong> opportunity, in Meech, to<br />
obfuscate on “distinct society” <strong>and</strong> pass <strong>the</strong> buck to <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court, we did<br />
not take it.<br />
<strong>The</strong> metaphors of marriage <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> family have often been used to describe <strong>the</strong><br />
Quebec-“Rest of Canada” relationship. Such metaphors seem particularly<br />
applicable to abeyances. In most longst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> successful relationships<br />
<strong>the</strong>re are, (in Foleyian terms), “underst<strong>and</strong>ings”; <strong>the</strong>re is “suspended<br />
irresolution” of some matters; <strong>the</strong>re are “conventions of non-exposure”; <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>re is “complicity in delusion” so that we can, quite simply, continue to get<br />
along with each o<strong>the</strong>r. <strong>The</strong>re may well be an increasing realization of this in<br />
Quebec, <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> rest of <strong>the</strong> country.<br />
<strong>The</strong> one abeyance that might be uncoupled from <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs is <strong>the</strong> question of<br />
aboriginal rights. <strong>The</strong>re could be sufficient public support for this, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
work of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples could set <strong>the</strong> scene. To<br />
say this is to be optimistic. Finally, we might hope for new <strong>and</strong> creative<br />
leadership, greater tolerance, more imagination <strong>and</strong> less certitude as we try to<br />
break free of “<strong>the</strong> late modern century.” 44 New abeyances can flourish <strong>and</strong><br />
assimilate diverse principles if we let <strong>the</strong>m do so, but first <strong>the</strong>re are grave areas<br />
of “unsettled settlement” to resolve.<br />
Notes<br />
1. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, “<strong>Federalism</strong>, Nationalism <strong>and</strong> Reason” in <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> French<br />
Canadians (Toronto: Macmillan & Company, Ltd., 1968).<br />
2. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, “Quebec <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Problem” in <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
French Canadians, op. cit., 36. Trudeau has repeated this point of view recently in his<br />
pamphlet “Fatal Tilt: Speaking Out About Sovereignty” (Toronto: Harper Collins<br />
Publishers, 1991), 14-15. He states: “I am on record since <strong>the</strong> mid-sixties as having pointed<br />
out <strong>the</strong> dangers of embarking on a constitutional voyage when <strong>the</strong> virus of consititutionitis<br />
had begun to infect <strong>the</strong> ship of state. But <strong>the</strong> provinces took matters into <strong>the</strong>ir own h<strong>and</strong>s in<br />
1967 ... surely <strong>the</strong> federal government had no choice but to accept <strong>the</strong> challenge <strong>and</strong> sail on.”<br />
3. Canada, Task Force on Canadian Unity, A Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r: Observations <strong>and</strong><br />
Recommendations (Ottawa: Supply <strong>and</strong> Services Canada, 1979).<br />
4. See Cristine Andrea Beauvais De Clercy, “Holding H<strong>and</strong>s with <strong>the</strong> Public: Trudeau <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Task Force on Canadian Unity, 1977-79.” Unpublished M.A. <strong>The</strong>sis, University of<br />
Saskatchewan, 1992.<br />
5. Note in particular <strong>the</strong> discussion of <strong>the</strong> ironies of <strong>the</strong> Trudeau legacy in Kenneth McRoberts,<br />
English Canada <strong>and</strong> Quebec: Avoiding <strong>the</strong> Issue (York: Robarts Centre for <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Studies, 1991).<br />
76
Turning a Blind Eye:<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Abeyances <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian Experience<br />
6. Charles Taylor has presented a case for <strong>the</strong> recognition of what he calls second level or<br />
“deep” diversity. See his “Shared <strong>and</strong> Divergent Values,” a paper prepared for <strong>the</strong> Business<br />
Council on National Issues Symposium on Canada’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al Options (Toronto,<br />
January, 1991), <strong>and</strong> his brief but important remarks regarding “<strong>The</strong> Politics of Recognition”<br />
in Douglas Brown, Robert Young, <strong>and</strong> Dwight Herberger, (eds.), <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Commentaries: An Assessment of <strong>the</strong> 1991 Federal Proposal. (Kingston: Institute of<br />
Intergovernmental Relations, conference paper number 10, 1991).<br />
7. See Robert C. Vipond, Liberty <strong>and</strong> Community: Canadian <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Failure of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991). Note also Janet Ajzenstat<br />
(ed.) Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong>alism 1791-1991 (Ottawa: Canadian Study of Parliament<br />
Group, 1992). This collection of essays “illustrates <strong>the</strong> origins <strong>and</strong> contours of <strong>the</strong> quarrel<br />
between <strong>Constitution</strong>alists <strong>and</strong> Communitarians that underlies today’s debate on<br />
constitutional reform.”<br />
8. Peter H. Russell, “Can <strong>the</strong> Canadians Be a Sovereign People,” Presidential Address to <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian Political Science Association (Kingston: Queen’s University, 1991), reported in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian Journal of Political Science, 24 (1991), 691-709.<br />
9. Ibid., 699-700.<br />
10. Alan C. Cairns, “<strong>The</strong> Living Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong>” in Blair <strong>and</strong> McLeod (eds.), <strong>The</strong><br />
Canadian Political Tradition (Toronto: Methuen, 1987), 11.<br />
11. Alan C. Cairns, “Recent Federalist <strong>Constitution</strong>al Proposals” in Douglas E. Williams (ed.),<br />
Disruptions: <strong>Constitution</strong>al Struggles form <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> to Meech <strong>La</strong>ke (Toronto:<br />
McClell<strong>and</strong>, Stewart, 1991), 57.<br />
12. Michael Foley, <strong>The</strong> Silence of <strong>Constitution</strong>s (London: Routledge, 1989).<br />
13. Ibid., 9.<br />
14. See Andrew Heard, Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong>al Conventions: <strong>The</strong> Marriage of <strong>La</strong>w <strong>and</strong><br />
Politics (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1991), ch. 7.<br />
15. Foley, op. cit., XI.<br />
16. Ibid., 126.<br />
17. Ibid., 119. See chapters three <strong>and</strong> five for a detailed discussion of British <strong>and</strong> American<br />
experience.<br />
18. See D.V. Smiley’s comment that “I can find only two major <strong>and</strong> important sets of<br />
suggestions for basic constitutional change prior to <strong>the</strong> 1960s: <strong>the</strong> report emanating from <strong>the</strong><br />
interprovincial conferences of 1887, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> highly structuralist thrust of <strong>the</strong> proposals of <strong>the</strong><br />
League for Social Reconstruction in 1935.” This is attached as a footnote to “A Dangerous<br />
Deed: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, 1982” in Banting <strong>and</strong> Simeon And No One Cheered:<br />
<strong>Federalism</strong>, Democracy <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, (Toronto, Methuen, 1983), 94.<br />
19. In Peter Russell’s view “Australia’s founding fa<strong>the</strong>rs, it would seem, were more committed<br />
federalists than Canada’s. Certainly <strong>the</strong>y knew more about federalism”. See “<strong>The</strong> Politics of<br />
Frustration; <strong>The</strong> pursuit of Formal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change in Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada” in<br />
Hodgins, Eddy, Grant <strong>and</strong> Stru<strong>the</strong>rs (eds.), <strong>Federalism</strong> in Canada <strong>and</strong> Australia: Historical<br />
Perspectives, 1920-88 (Peterborough: Trent University, 1989), 59. In practice it should be<br />
noted that this formula hasn’t been that flexible: only eight out of 42 proposed amendments<br />
have passed.<br />
20. For a classic <strong>and</strong> still extremely useful analysis of <strong>the</strong> amending problem in federal societies<br />
<strong>and</strong> states see W.S. Livingston, <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change, (Oxford: Clarendon<br />
Press, 1956), 178. This quote is used by Livingston in his discussion of <strong>the</strong> Swiss experience.<br />
21. Jennifer Smith, “Canadian Confederation <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Influence of American <strong>Federalism</strong>,”<br />
Canadian Journal of Political Science, 21 (1988), 459.<br />
22. Walter Dellinger, “<strong>The</strong> Amending Process in Canada <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> United States: A Comparative<br />
Perspective” in Davenport <strong>and</strong> Leach (eds.), Reshaping Confederation: <strong>The</strong> 1982 Reform of<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> (Durham, Duke University Centre for International Studies, 1984), 286.<br />
23. Livingston, op. cit.<br />
24. Ibid., 305.<br />
25. Garth Stevenson, Unfulfilled Union. (Canada: Gage, 1989), 239. Stevenson unleashes a<br />
stinging criticism of <strong>the</strong> 1982 agreement, saying that “<strong>the</strong> ‘new’ Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong> was<br />
an untidy collection of miscellaneous provisions reflecting sordid <strong>and</strong> undignified<br />
compromises with a variety of provincial interests,” 238.<br />
26. A Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r, op. cit., 41.<br />
77
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
27. Ibid., 87.<br />
28. Ibid.<br />
29. Alan C. Cairns, “Recent Federalist <strong>Constitution</strong>al Proposals,” op. cit., 53.<br />
30. A Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r, op. cit., 125.<br />
31. Guy <strong>La</strong>forest, “Interpreting <strong>the</strong> Political Heritage of André <strong>La</strong>urendeau” in Smith,<br />
Mackinnon <strong>and</strong> Courtney (eds.), After Meech <strong>La</strong>ke: Lessons for <strong>the</strong> Future (Saskatoon: Fifth<br />
House Publishers, 1991), 102.<br />
32. See Alan C. Cairns, <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> versus <strong>Federalism</strong>: <strong>The</strong> Dilemmas of <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform<br />
(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992), ch. 3.<br />
33. David J. Bercuson <strong>and</strong> Barry Cooper, “From <strong>Constitution</strong>al Monarchy to Quasi Republic:<br />
<strong>The</strong> Evolution of Liberal Democracy in Canada” in Ajzenstat, op. cit., 27.<br />
34. Christopher Dunn in fact uses <strong>the</strong> phrase “<strong>the</strong> silence of <strong>the</strong> constitution” to explain<br />
Quebec’s de facto acquisition of power. See “Do Canada <strong>and</strong> Quebec Need Each O<strong>the</strong>r,”<br />
paper presented at <strong>the</strong> Annual Meeting of <strong>the</strong> Canadian Political Science Association,<br />
(Kingston: Queen’s University, 1991), 13.<br />
35. See Taylor, “Divergent Values,” op. cit., 16.<br />
36. Patrick Monahan, Meech <strong>La</strong>ke: <strong>The</strong> Inside Story (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,<br />
1991), 258.<br />
37. Taylor, “Divergent Values,” op. cit., 31. Taylor lists aspirations which should be<br />
compatible: duality <strong>and</strong> multiculturalism; aboriginal <strong>and</strong> Quebec claims to distinctiveness;<br />
regional equality <strong>and</strong> Quebec’s dem<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
38. A useful discussion of this problem is to be found in Serge Denis, Le Long Malentendu: Le<br />
Québec vu par les intellectuels progressistes au Canada anglais 1970-1991 (Québec: Les<br />
Éditions du Boréal, 1992).<br />
39. Roger Gibbins <strong>and</strong> David Thomas “Ten Lessons from <strong>the</strong> Referendum,” Canadian<br />
Parliamentary Review, vol. 15, No. 4. 1992-3, 6.<br />
40. See Jennifer Smith, “Representation <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform in Canada” in Smith,<br />
Mackinnon, Courtney (eds.), After Meech <strong>La</strong>ke, op. cit., 78.<br />
41. Gibbins <strong>and</strong> Thomas, op. cit.<br />
42. Dunn, op. cit., 4.<br />
43. Christian Dufour, “A Canadian Challenge / Le défi québécois,” (<strong>La</strong>nzantville, B.C. <strong>and</strong><br />
Halifax, N.S.: Oolichan Books <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1990), 145.<br />
44. See Ged Martin’s optimistic conclusion in “<strong>The</strong> Canadian Question <strong>and</strong> <strong>The</strong> <strong>La</strong>te Modern<br />
Century,” British Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 7, No. 2 (1992), 215-247.<br />
78
Richard <strong>La</strong>Rue<br />
Jocelyn Létourneau<br />
De l’unité et de l’identité au Canada.<br />
Essai sur l’éclatement d’un état<br />
Résumé<br />
Comment expliquer les déchirements de tous ordres qui font craindre<br />
aujourd’hui l’éclatement du Canada ? Essentiellement soucieux des<br />
tendances lourdes qui semblent pousser à la désagrégation de l’unité politique<br />
et de l’identité collective, les auteurs estiment que certains aspects du<br />
postkeynésiannisme qui caractérisent le pays entraînent une crise virtuelle sur<br />
les plans de la représentation, de la légitimation et de la régulation. Par<br />
ailleurs, cette crise serait exacerbée et infléchie diversement par trois facteurs<br />
structurels : l’épuisement du modèle politique; l’irruption de la mondialité au<br />
coeur du projet nationalitaire; et la fin des gr<strong>and</strong>s récits collectifs. Bref, cet<br />
article propose une problématique générale qui permet d’examiner dans une<br />
optique macroscopique la phase actuelle du « problème canadien ».<br />
Abstract<br />
How can we explain <strong>the</strong> divisions of every description that now threaten to<br />
rend Canada asunder? Mindful of <strong>the</strong> weighty trends that seem to be pushing<br />
toward <strong>the</strong> dissolution of political unity <strong>and</strong> collective identity, <strong>the</strong> authors<br />
believe that some of <strong>the</strong> country’s post-Keynesian characteristics are leading<br />
to a virtual crisis in representation, legitimation <strong>and</strong> regulation. As well, this<br />
crisis seems variously exacerbated <strong>and</strong> altered by three structural factors: <strong>the</strong><br />
bankruptcy of <strong>the</strong> political model; <strong>the</strong> intrusion of globalization into <strong>the</strong> heart<br />
of <strong>the</strong> national plan; <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> great collective narratives. In short, this<br />
article describes a general situation that allows for a macroscopic<br />
examination of <strong>the</strong> current phase of <strong>the</strong> “Canadian problem.”<br />
Depuis sa fondation en 1867, le Canada a été marqué par des tendances à<br />
l’éclatement profondes, permanentes et invariablement vécues sous la forme<br />
de crises d’unité et d’identité. Il serait d’ailleurs instructif de se dem<strong>and</strong>er<br />
pourquoi, malgré les risques de rupture dont il a été le théâtre tout au long de<br />
son histoire, le Canada a su perdurer en tant qu’état national. En fait, la<br />
production de l’unité et de l’identité au Canada est un problème fondamental<br />
qui s’inscrit au coeur même du devenir de cet état, et les tergiversations<br />
récentes sur la question constitutionnelle n’ont fait que traduire un nouveau<br />
moment du processus pénible et perpétuel de la recherche d’une forme de<br />
régulation, de légitimation et de représentation politique qui satisfasse les<br />
aspirations de tous les groupes de la société canadienne.<br />
Cela dit, en dépit du fait que le problème de l’unité et de l’identité canadiennes<br />
soit, à cet état, structurel, sa nature est historiquement changeante, et sa facture<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
actuelle, ainsi que ses causes, ne sont plus les mêmes. Aussi paraît-il pertinent<br />
de s’interroger sur les facteurs qui, dans la présente conjoncture, favorisent<br />
l’éclatement de l’union.<br />
À cet égard, deux options sont ouvertes : nous en tenir à une analyse<br />
synchronique du débat compliqué qui, depuis le rapatriement de la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> en 1982, marque l’horizon politique canadien et, par ce biais,<br />
nous livrer à une évaluation des différentes stratégies employées par les<br />
acteurs en présence pour parvenir à leurs fins; ou, à travers une perspective<br />
diachronique, identifier un certain nombre de « tendances lourdes » qui,<br />
s’inscrivant au coeur du devenir historique de l’état canadien, posent les<br />
conditions actuelles de sa rupture « par le haut » et « par le bas ». Nous<br />
préconiserons cette seconde option en essayant de faire ressortir comment le<br />
Canada vit au fond un problème que partagent à des degrés divers nombre<br />
d’états contemporains1 : la production des sujets politiques dans les sociétés<br />
postkeynésiennes, c’est-à-dire le problème de la recherche d’une concordance<br />
entre l’unité et l’identité de la société à une époque d’inflexion et d’altération<br />
significatives des principes d’organisation et des modes d’action formels,<br />
sociaux et politiques, qui étaient propres aux états marqués et définis par ce que<br />
certains ont appelé la « régulation monopoliste » 2 — et dont le Canada était un<br />
exemple parmi bien d’autres.<br />
Dans le cadre de cet article, nous nous limiterons à présenter trois facteurs<br />
majeurs qui affectent la production de l’unité et de l’identité canadiennes en<br />
ces temps troubles et qui, ce faisant, provoquent une crise des modes de<br />
régulation, de légitimation et de représentation à l’oeuvre au sein de cet état.<br />
Avant d’en arriver là, nous formulerons cependant quelques éléments d’une<br />
problématique concernant la production des sujets politiques dans les sociétés<br />
postkeynésiennes. Pour nous interroger ensuite sur les changements et les<br />
altérations qui ont affecté le Canada à un point tel que l’on puisse en parler<br />
comme d’un état postkeynésien.<br />
Des sujets politiques dans les sociétés postkeynésiennes<br />
Dans notre esprit, le keynésiannisme ne désigne pas seulement un mode<br />
d’intégration économique des travailleurs-consommateurs dans la dynamique<br />
générale d’un régime d’accumulation du capital. Il renvoie aussi à un mode de<br />
production des sujets politiques dans lequel ceux-ci, définis en tant qu’acteurs<br />
normalisés — « comme lieu d’une synthèse identitaire unique, irréductible et<br />
absolue » — cautionnent réciproquement leurs agirs par l’acceptation des<br />
termes d’un contrat sociopolitique dont le fiduciaire et le légataire unique est<br />
l’État. Vendant en quelque sorte leur « personne privée » en contrepartie d’une<br />
identité octroyée, celle de la « personne civile », qui les assure d’une<br />
couverture tout risque (filet de la sécurité sociale) accordée par un État<br />
providentiel et bienfaiteur, les sujets politiques, en honorant les termes du<br />
contrat, s’assurent également les privilèges d’une reconnaissance et d’un<br />
endossement officiels, ceux que leur procure la nation dans laquelle ils<br />
trouvent en outre, par décret, « ancienneté » (celle-ci confondant allègrement<br />
la tradition), c’est-à-dire histoire et mémoire.<br />
<strong>La</strong> notion de postkeynésiannisme, à laquelle nous n’accolons aucun statut<br />
théorique mais que nous voulons essentiellement descriptive, cherche à<br />
résumer et à décrire certaines inflexions ou dissolutions des principes et des<br />
modes d’action formels de l’état keynésien, de même que l’altération des<br />
formes d’identité politique dominante prévalant en son sein. On pourrait<br />
82
De l’unité et de l’indentité au Canada.<br />
Essai sur l’éclatement d’un État<br />
longuement discuter pour savoir si le postkeynésiannisme marque une rupture<br />
ou une altération, une inflexion ou une accentuation, une intensification ou une<br />
hypertrophisation, une sophistication ou une stylisation, une radicalisation ou<br />
une exacerbation des formes politico-sociales propres au keynésiannisme.<br />
Disons qu’il est probablement tout cela à la fois, qu’il est vulnérable aux<br />
interfaces et qu’il n’échappe pas à la logique convulsive et paradoxale de<br />
l’évolution des choses. Les tendances centrifuges que l’on dit être<br />
caractéristiques du postkeynésiannisme étaient certainement déjà présentes,<br />
contenues à l’« état de possible », dans le keynésiannisme et les décentrements<br />
à l’oeuvre dans tous les pores du tissu de la société canadienne traduisent une<br />
crise — à moins que ce ne soit une mutation encore inachevée — des formes<br />
régulatrices qui agissaient au sein de la société keynésienne (envisagée ici<br />
comme un idéal-type) et qui contribuaient à la structurer en tant qu’entité<br />
productrice de puissants effets de recentrement, de massification et de<br />
nivellement.<br />
Cela dit, la question principale qui nous occupe dans le cadre de cet article est<br />
la suivante : si on postule que le postkeynésiannisme marque une transition par<br />
rapport au keynésiannisme au plan de la régulation, de la légitimation et de la<br />
représentation, quelle est, dans ce nouveau contexte, la forme existentielle que<br />
prend le sujet politique ? En d’autres termes, comment s’établit (ou ne s’établit<br />
pas encore) la concordance entre l’unité et l’identité dans la société<br />
postkeynésienne ?<br />
Pour répondre à cette question, nous profiterons de la réflexion de Michel<br />
Freitag qui, toutefois, parle plus volontiers de postmodernité que de<br />
postkeynésiannisme3. On dira ainsi que, dans la société postkeynésienne, le<br />
sujet politique est d’abord un individu qui, conscient de son identité subjective<br />
et l’assumant, cherche à l’accréditer, l’asseoir, la promouvoir et la réaliser<br />
dans toute l’extension que lui permet son inscription dans un corps social. Il y<br />
entretient des relations d’intérêts avec d’autres individus dans le cadre de<br />
mouvements sociaux fondant leur existence dans le partage d’un certain<br />
nombre de valeurs, de modèles culturels ou civilisationnels et de caractères<br />
particuliers. Il faut souligner ici l’importance de ces mouvements sociaux qui,<br />
certes, ne sont pas apparus récemment mais dont l’émergence comme force<br />
politique a considérablement changé les modalités d’expression de la<br />
citoyenneté dans la société civile. Dans la mesure où, nous dit Freitag, ces<br />
mouvements sociaux expriment la consolidation organisationnelle de toutes<br />
sortes d’intérêts particuliers (de nature corporative) qui acquièrent un statut<br />
officiel à travers leur reconnaissance publique, judiciaire et médiatique, on a<br />
vu s’instaurer un décalage croissant entre, d’un côté, l’universalisme<br />
transcendental (associé au concept d’État) et l’unité de l’identité<br />
communautaire (lié au concept de nation), et, de l’autre, la spécificité<br />
empirique de plus en plus marquée des formes de mobilisation portées par ces<br />
mouvements sociaux qui revendiquent désormais des droits au nom de leurs<br />
identités et de leurs intérêts particuliers (You are what you believe!, suggère un<br />
slogan). Ces intérêts sont fondés sur l’idée d’une reconnaissance de la<br />
différence et de l’autonomie. C’est ainsi, continue Freitag, que l’idée<br />
d’appartenance et de participation politique s’est trouvé modifiée : la<br />
citoyenneté s’est décomposée en une multitude de modalités et de degrés de<br />
participation organisationnels et corporatifs par rapport auxquels les groupes<br />
se trouvent hiérarchisés : a) selon la puissance qu’ils détiennent<br />
empiriquement dans les jeux de l’influence; b) selon la capacité qu’ils ont de<br />
mobiliser toutes sortes d’intérêts et d’identités spécifiques; et c) selon les<br />
83
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
aptitudes qu’ils déploient pour faire reconnaître au « public », de manière<br />
médiatique, la légitimité de leurs objectifs ou la valeur des finalités qu’ils<br />
poursuivent. Il n’est certes pas excessif de prétendre, dès lors, que le sujet<br />
politique dans l’état keynésien, « sujet social identitaire et synthétique », s’est<br />
complètement fragmenté en un ensemble de subjectivités catégorielles de plus<br />
en plus immédiatement concrètes et particulières, lesquelles recherchent, par<br />
le biais d’une action protectrice, la constitution de sphères singularisées<br />
d’autonomie privée en se référant, pour justifier leur prétention, aux « droits<br />
de la personne » et donc à une « liberté » définie de manière entièrement privée.<br />
Le Canada en tant qu’état postkeynésien ?<br />
Quels sont donc, pour reprendre les termes de la question plus tôt formulée, les<br />
changements et altérations qui ont à ce point affecté le Canada que l’on puisse<br />
en parler comme d’un état postkeynésien ? Sans épuiser le sujet, on exposera<br />
les idées qui suivent.<br />
Le premier changement concerne certainement le mode de représentation<br />
politique auquel aspire un gr<strong>and</strong> nombre de citoyens qui, cherchant de<br />
nouveaux lieux d’intervention et d’incorporation, contredisent la tradition de<br />
s’en remettre aux autorités politiques pour administrer, par délégation<br />
complète de pouvoir, la chose publique (la revendication pour un « Sénat triple<br />
E », portée principalement par des intervenants provenant de l’Ouest du pays<br />
lors des dernières négociations constitutionnelles, incarnait en partie cette<br />
aspiration) 4. Le deuxième changement majeur a trait à la critique de l’idée du<br />
« citoyen universel », fiduciaire d’un État exécutif qui se fait en retour<br />
bienfaiteur et protecteur, au profit du concept de « groupe opprimé » qui non<br />
seulement offre une alternative à la participation active de citoyens regroupés<br />
sur la base de la proximité et du partage de leurs conditions de vie, mais les<br />
assure aussi d’une représentation directe dans l’agora (à cet égard, certains<br />
groupes féministes ont dit que la Chambre des communes devrait être une<br />
« Chambre d’égalité » plutôt qu’une « Chambre des provinces »). Le troisième<br />
changement affectant la matérialité de l’état canadien tient à l’érosion de<br />
l’identité canadienne au profit d’autres identités plus restreintes ou plus larges.<br />
Ce phénomène confirme la tendance, observée par nombre de commentateurs,<br />
d’un délestage marqué de l’appartenance des personnes de leurs ancrages<br />
traditionnels (l’État-nation et la communauté politique territorialisée,<br />
notamment). Autrement dit, dorénavant l’importance des parcours personnels<br />
combinée à l’obtention de certaines garanties juridiques qui protègent leurs<br />
droits, permettent en quelque sorte aux personnes de désaccorder leur histoire,<br />
donc leur être politique, d’un parcours collectif qui n’est ni vécu, ni perçu<br />
comme le lieu de leur action. En termes concrets, cette déconnexion entre<br />
l’action personnelle et le parcours collectif se traduit souvent par le fait que,<br />
pour un citoyen, l’intégration à un groupe n’entraîne plus nécessairement le<br />
partage d’un seul lieu commun ni d’une seule culture. Du point de vue de la<br />
constitution de communautés d’appartenance de type national, ce phénomène<br />
constitue un problème majeur qui se vit sous la forme d’une « crise de la<br />
référence et de la symbolique nationales ». Cette crise de la représentation<br />
symbolique du lieu commun — il s’agit là d’un quatrième changement<br />
affectant structurellement l’état canadien — trouve ses conditions au niveau<br />
de la remise en cause des interprétations traditionnelles de l’histoire et des<br />
conceptions spatio-temporelles sur lesquelles elles sont fondées. À ce<br />
chapitre, les Autochtones, les femmes, les écologistes et les membres des<br />
communautés ethniques ont le plus activement contesté les paramètres connus<br />
84
De l’unité et de l’indentité au Canada.<br />
Essai sur l’éclatement d’un État<br />
du gr<strong>and</strong> récit historique du Canada — lequel est fondé sur une vision linéaire<br />
et progressive, libérale et patriarcale, dualiste et totalisante des choses — pour<br />
insister plutôt sur les notions de « différence », de « relativité » et<br />
d’« historicité », façon de marquer leur désir de rompre avec la trame infirme,<br />
réductive et archi-classique de cette configuration narrative du « Nous<br />
collectif ». Le cinquième changement altérant le substrat de l’état canadien<br />
découle de l’importance gr<strong>and</strong>issante acquise par les immigrants de fraîche<br />
date. Contrairement à l’idée rép<strong>and</strong>ue, ceux-ci ne « vivent » pas naturellement<br />
l’identité qui leur est octroyée par leur statut de nouveau citoyen résidant au<br />
Canada, mais l’adoptent ou la refusent, la modifient ou la recomposent dans<br />
des formes souvent originales qui, si elles élargissent singulièrement le<br />
paysage culturel de la nation, déstabilisent en même temps la théorie depuis<br />
toujours acceptée d’une société canadienne basée sur deux peuples fondateurs<br />
(ou trois si on inclut les Autochtones).<br />
<strong>La</strong> remise en cause des équilibres régulateurs existants — tant sur le plan<br />
politique et social que culturel et symbolique — à partir d’une critique de<br />
l’universalisme indifférencié et de l’égalité substantielle; la déconstruction<br />
des gr<strong>and</strong>es représentations communes; l’émergence de nouvelles identités<br />
fondées sur le particularisme culturel et sur la différenciation individuelle; et la<br />
déterritorialisation des appartenances et des visions collectives montrent que<br />
l’état canadien est entré dans une période de transition que résume bien la<br />
notion descriptive de postkeynésiannisme (suivant la définition que nous en<br />
donnons). Comment, dans ces conditions, produire un sujet politique en même<br />
temps qu’un état national (en d’autres termes, comment produire de l’unité et<br />
de l’identité dans la dissension), tel est le dilemme et telle est l’impasse du<br />
Canada. Au lieu de proposer des modalités de résolution à cette véritable<br />
équation infernale, nous tenterons plutôt de faire ressortir l’ampleur et la<br />
profondeur des germes d’implosion et d’explosion plantés au sein de l’état<br />
canadien par l’affirmation virulente des tendances que nous venons de décrire.<br />
Facteurs d’éclatement de l’unité canadienne<br />
Au début des années 1990, la production simultanée de l’unité et de l’identité<br />
devient un défi majeur. En évitant de continuellement nous référer aux<br />
données de la conjoncture actuelle, nous nous limiterons à identifier trois<br />
tendances lourdes et rampantes qui agissent au coeur de la matérialité de l’état<br />
canadien en la modifiant et qui, de ce fait, provoquent une crise majeure des<br />
modes de régulation, de légitimation et de représentation à l’oeuvre au sein de<br />
cet état.<br />
L’épuisement d’un modèle politique<br />
<strong>La</strong> production concordante de l’unité et de l’identité se révèle un gr<strong>and</strong> défi à<br />
cause de l’épuisement du modèle politique dans le cadre duquel s’est<br />
historiquement formée la nation canadienne (le fédéralisme exécutif) et a<br />
fonctionné l’état canadien depuis ses débuts. Trois causes interreliées<br />
expliquent cet épuisement.<br />
1. la dynamique à l’origine de la représentation au sein des instances<br />
décisionnelles du système politique canadien est fortement contestée par<br />
nombre d’acteurs, réunis en groupes ou associations, qui recherchent des<br />
modes d’intervention plus directs et des formes d’incorporation plus<br />
définies et plus achevées dans les structures du pouvoir — d’où l’idée de<br />
« constitutionnaliser » leurs dem<strong>and</strong>es et d’influencer les rondes de<br />
85
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
négociations pour que les intervenants à la table centrale tiennent compte<br />
de leurs intérêts spécifiques qu’ils définissent en terme d’une réforme de la<br />
représentativité et des institutions;<br />
2. la dualité fondatrice (l’idée des deux peuples fondateurs et ses incidences<br />
sur l’aménagement des équilibres internes de l’union), l’un des principes<br />
fondamentaux qui régularisent l’état canadien tant sur le plan politique que<br />
sur le plan social et culurel, est également remise en cause. Bon nombre de<br />
groupes se sentent peu concernés par ses aspects réducteurs (c’est le cas<br />
des Amérindiens et de plusieurs mouvements sociaux, par exemple celui<br />
des femmes) ou estiment que les paramètres qu’il impose à la vie politique<br />
canadienne sont inefficaces ou insuffisants pour permettre leur<br />
épanouissement en tant que collectivité agissante (c’est le cas des<br />
nationalistes québécois qui préféreraient que le Québec devienne un état à<br />
part entière, mais c’est aussi le cas des membres des communautés<br />
ethniques et raciales) 5;<br />
3. la reconnaissance des personnes comme citoyens garantie par leur accès à<br />
un vaste système de protection sociale et d’égalité des droits fondé sur<br />
l’idée de l’universalité des chances et de l’effacement des différences<br />
(« citoyen universel ») constitue un deuxième principe régulateur<br />
fondamental également débattu sous prétexte que ce système, en<br />
massifiant les perspectives (donc en homogénéisant les problèmes et les<br />
solutions) ne répond plus aux conditions d’épanouissement d’acteurs qui<br />
recherchent des réponses particulières à leurs besoins existentiels distincts<br />
tout en souscrivant à l’idée générale et généreuse de l’équité 6.<br />
On voit bien comment ces trois ordres de revendications : plus de pouvoir<br />
direct, un équilibre de l’union qui ne repose plus sur la dualité fondatrice —<br />
donc une ouverture vers la pluralité administrative — et le délestage de<br />
l’égalité formelle des individus au bénéfice de l’équité pratique entre les<br />
groupes, sont susceptibles de miner les fondements du système politique<br />
canadien et de provoquer une crise profonde de la régulation, de la légitimation<br />
et de la représentation. Il importe en effet de comprendre, pour prendre cet<br />
exemple, que l’ab<strong>and</strong>on du principe de l’égalité formelle des citoyens remet en<br />
cause, dans sa dynamique même, le mode de régulation sur la base duquel<br />
l’État central avait assis sa légitimité et bâti sa « figure providentielle » depuis<br />
le milieu des années 1930 : celui d’une gestion centralisée et homogénéisante<br />
d’individus pratiquement interchangeables et perçus comme facteurs de<br />
production qui circulent et consomment de manière optimale à l’intérieur<br />
d’une économie intégrée et pannationale 7. Il en va de même pour la<br />
revendication de l’accès au pouvoir. À cet égard, la tendance inéluctable du<br />
rétrécissement de l’espace démocratique consécutive à la centralisation qui<br />
découle des modalités d’opération de l’État-providence (et dont ont<br />
directement bénéficié les technocrates et la classe politique canadienne en<br />
s’instituant les m<strong>and</strong>ataires d’un gigantesque système de redistribution des<br />
richesses) se voit stoppée, sinon renversée, au profit de groupes en voie de<br />
légitimisation qui ne détiennent pour l’instant aucune assise politique stable ou<br />
fondée sur un consensus national. Finalement, la remise en cause de l’idée de<br />
la dualité fondatrice comme paramètre essentiel de la régulation et de la<br />
représentation de l’État canadien provoque d’angoissants vertiges à toute la<br />
classe politique canadienne, et ce, bien qu’elle démontre les ouvertures<br />
apparentes pour endosser les desiderata de certains groupes, les Autochtones<br />
notamment. En fait, remettre en question ce principe d’équilibre de la<br />
fédération canadienne — principe auquel s’accroche résolument le<br />
gouvernement du Québec pour entériner tout nouveau projet de constitution et<br />
86
De l’unité et de l’indentité au Canada.<br />
Essai sur l’éclatement d’un État<br />
auquel semblent également tenir bon nombre d’hommes et de femmes<br />
politiques à travers le Canada qui y trouvent leur assise et une certaine<br />
sécurité8 — crée un vide représentatif que cherchent à combler autant de<br />
groupes inspirés par l’idéologie de la rectitude politique (political<br />
correctness). Ne se définissant ni par rapport à une territorialité bien arrêtée<br />
(cas des Autochtones) ni par rapport aux catégories jusque-là admises de<br />
« personnes de langue et de culture française ou anglaise détenant des droits<br />
individuels » (cas de la plupart des groupes opprimés : femmes, personnes<br />
âgées, personnes h<strong>and</strong>icapées, pauvres, victimes de ceci ou de cela, etc.) ces<br />
groupes désirent néanmoins avoir voix au chapitre et inscrire leur historicité<br />
particulière au coeur du devenir de l’État canadien.<br />
Jusqu’ici, la crise de régulation, de légitimation et de représentation de l’État<br />
canadien a été « absorbée » par le système politique de deux manières : par la<br />
négociation continuelle (et on sait à quel point ce mode de « résolution » des<br />
conflits, peu importe qu’il retarde, englue ou fasse avancer les choses,<br />
constitue une dimension permanente de l’expérience politique canadienne); et<br />
par le recours systématique aux tribunaux de la part des intervenants, façon<br />
d’inscrire ou de faire valoir leurs droits dans les cadres du régime<br />
constitutionnel associé à l’instauration de la <strong>Charte</strong> des droits et des libertés de<br />
la personne en 1982. Cette absorption de la crise a cependant donné lieu à une<br />
digestion très difficile de ses effets pervers. D’une part, les rondes de<br />
négociation constitutionnelle, en plus d’être extrêmement onéreuses sur le<br />
plan financier et humain, ont complexifié la situation en élargissant<br />
sensiblement le débat et en faisant écho à tous les groupes qui se manifestent<br />
sur la scène publique, sans pour autant rompre avec la perspective dualiste<br />
traditionnelle — ce qui rend hasardeuse la découverte d’une « régulation »<br />
nouvelle9; d’autre part, l’utilisation fréquente des tribunaux, en plus de<br />
favoriser l’apparition d’une véritable culture institutionnalisée de la<br />
complainte, a substitué à l’incorporation des acteurs dans l’agora un mode de<br />
représentation essentiellement judiciarisée des points de vue. Cette pratique<br />
fait bien sûr la fortune des juristes mais contribue à accroître le déficit<br />
démocratique de la société canadienne.<br />
<strong>La</strong> mondialité inscrite au coeur du projet nationalitaire<br />
<strong>La</strong> production simultanée de l’unité et de l’identité au Canada s’avère un gr<strong>and</strong><br />
défi pour une deuxième raison — liée à ce que l’on pourrait appeler<br />
l’apparition de nouvelles territorialités de référence et d’appartenance — celle<br />
en particulier de la « mondialité » et de son pendant culturel<br />
« l’internationalisme » 10. Contrairement à ce que l’on pourrait croire, cette<br />
tendance est majeure, concerne une proportion importante de la population et<br />
se traduit par une remise en cause assez dramatique de l’idée d’État-nation<br />
comme espace d’intervention politique, d’allégeance et de référence — d’où la<br />
crise de légitimité qui s’ensuit pour les entités nationales.<br />
Au cours des vingt dernières années se sont en effet multipliés les groupes et<br />
les réseaux d’action pour qui la planète est le terrain d’intervention privilégié,<br />
celui à partir duquel ils se définissent une identité, celui aussi par rapport<br />
auquel ils entendent reconfigurer l’espace politique. Contribuant à ce que R.<br />
Falk a appelé des « évasions de l’État » 11, ces actions politiques d’acteurs nonétatiques<br />
qui font des problèmes globaux (écologie, sida, droits de la personne,<br />
pauvreté endémique du Tiers-Monde, etc.) leur affaire, ont inscrit dans<br />
l’agenda politique des gouvernements nationaux tout un ensemble d’items<br />
pour lesquels des solutions lucides ne peuvent être trouvées, le cas échéant,<br />
87
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
qu’en autant que les états se dissolvent dans une espèce de communauté transnationale,<br />
cédant ainsi une gr<strong>and</strong>e partie de leur souveraineté traditionnelle et<br />
amenuisant par conséquent leur capacité à se représenter comme états<br />
indépendants définissant leur autonomie, c’est-à-dire leurs propres frontières<br />
d’inclusion et d’exclusion.<br />
Au cours de cette même période de vingt ans s’est également imposée, dans<br />
l’horizon politique et symbolique des états contemporains, une nouvelle figure<br />
identitaire : celle de l’être performant dont le champ d’action est le monde et<br />
qui trouve son fondement existentiel dans les stratégies d’accumulation des<br />
entreprises, si ce n’est dans les accords commerciaux12. Ce « monde » a bien<br />
sûr une extension spatiale, littéralement celle de la planète, mais il consiste<br />
surtout en une arène de réalisation du destin individuel de personnes dont le<br />
principe vital est d’assurer leur survie (Life is short. Play hard, dit un slogan),<br />
donc de démontrer leur appartenance au clan des gagnants — façon d’acquérir<br />
une identité optimale et de se farder du look impressionniste, « bon chic bon<br />
genre », y correspondant — en prouvant leur capacité à jouer ou à déjouer la<br />
concurrence internationale. Comme l’écrivait Benjamin R. Barber dans un<br />
article récent (article dont l’argumentation s’applique tout à fait au cas<br />
canadien) 13 : « Commercial pilots, computer programmers, international<br />
bankers, media specialists, oil riggers, entertainment celebrities, ecology<br />
experts, demographers, accountants, professors, athletes — <strong>the</strong>se compose a<br />
new breed of men <strong>and</strong> women for whom religion, culture <strong>and</strong> nationality can<br />
seem only marginal elements in a working identity. » Dans un ouvrage bien<br />
connu, Robert Reich14 estimait que cette nouvelle classe internationaliste, qui<br />
diffuse ses valeurs par l’entremise de médias prestigieux dans lesquels nombre<br />
de « non-admis » trouvent leurs mirages quotidiens, comptait pour environ 10<br />
p. 100 de la population américaine.<br />
Cette figure identitaire est endossée par l’élite politique et économique<br />
canadienne, ce qui signifie un idéal existentiel particulièrement valorisé dans<br />
les sphères où on élabore les représentations symboliques qui visent à assurer<br />
une cohérence au couple État-nation. Préparant l’arrivée prochaine dans les<br />
cercles du pouvoir d’une méritocratie internationaliste aux savoir-faire<br />
performants, elle a pourtant contribué à démembrer la représentation<br />
traditionnelle de l’État national et a inscrit, au coeur même de l’appareil<br />
étatique et du projet de promotion nationalitaire, l’esprit et la trace de la<br />
mondialité, si ce n’est ceux du McWorld soul et de la « culture Benetton »<br />
(dont l’éthique et l’esthétique s’incarnent dans un slogan génialement<br />
équivoque : « Toutes couleurs unies »). Si bien que, l’enjeu mondial<br />
déstructure la capacité des états à se représenter comme lieu de convergence et<br />
d’agrégation, l’internationalisation des communications et la métaphore du<br />
« village global » ne faisant qu’accentuer l’érosion des liens culturels qui<br />
unissaient autrefois les Canadiens.<br />
L’arrimage des acteurs à cette double structure référentielle, en apparence<br />
contradictoire, de la mondialité et de la nationalité n’a pas été vécu sur le mode<br />
de la confusion. Au contraire — et le slogan à la mode Think globally, act<br />
locally en fait foi — ce double bind dans lequel ils sont pris favorise leur<br />
inscription au sein d’un espace public et médiatique dont les frontières ne<br />
coïncident pas avec le territoire national. Il ouvre de ce fait la voie à<br />
l’affirmation d’une citoyenneté mondiale dont les porte-étendards, toujours<br />
plus nombreux, cherchent à faire reconnaître la trace dans les chartes<br />
universelles et au sein des organismes internationaux.<br />
88
De l’unité et de l’indentité au Canada.<br />
Essai sur l’éclatement d’un État<br />
L’affirmation d’une véritable culture politique transnationale, dont l’impact<br />
premier est de faire ressortir le côté obsolète de l’idée de territorialité<br />
nationale, n’est pas un phénomène excentrique à la dynamique sociale<br />
canadienne. Suivant l’hypothèse émise par Breton et Jenson, il y a lieu plutôt<br />
de reconnaître, dans cette culture transnationale, l’expression d’un « processus<br />
social réel qui s’enracine dans des réseaux d’action et de pouvoir en voie de<br />
globalisation ». Dès lors, il faut saisir l’importance des enjeux posés par la<br />
mondialité à l’État-nation : celle-ci, par la façon dont elle est assumée et prise<br />
en charge par des groupes et des segments toujours plus nombreux de la<br />
population, porte une redéfinition spatiale des gr<strong>and</strong>s paramètres de la vie<br />
politique canadienne, si ce n’est un forum d’expression positive du citoyen qui<br />
trouve désormais ses allégeances, ses reconnaissances et ses lieux<br />
d’identification dans une arène aux dimensions supranationales.<br />
<strong>La</strong> fin des gr<strong>and</strong>s récits collectifs ?<br />
Nous avons vu dans les paragraphes précédents comment l’état canadien, à la<br />
suite de pressions venant de l’intérieur et de l’extérieur, tendait à l’implosion et<br />
à l’explosion. Un troisième facteur, qui dans les circonstances accentue la<br />
tendance plus qu’il ne la provoque, concourt également à amplifier les<br />
menaces de rupture de l’union. Il s’agit de l’inefficacité des gr<strong>and</strong>s récits<br />
d’édification de la nation à activer un sens communautaire qui, sur le plan<br />
symbolique, propose un mode de représentation de l’état satisfaisant les<br />
aspirations et les visions des groupes. En d’autres termes, l’un des défis à la<br />
production de l’unité au Canada tient au fait que l’on ne trouve plus de lieu de<br />
reconnaissance et de réciprocité (sauf celui du social conçu comme un espace<br />
de valorisation et de promotion de ses droits particuliers ou corporatisés,<br />
espace notamment créé par la <strong>Charte</strong> de 1982) et que, plus que jamais, en<br />
l’absence surtout de héros récipiendaires de la ferveur populaire (héros<br />
incarnant probablement le Sujet fictif de la société unifiée), le discours de la<br />
nation, celle qui s’étend uniformément d’un océan à l’autre sonne creux ou<br />
reste inaudible. À cet égard, il est symptomatique qu’une enquête récemment<br />
effectuée pour le compte de l’Association d’études canadiennes ait révélé que<br />
les Canadiens avaient du mal à identifier, dans l’histoire ou dans l’actualité de<br />
leur pays, plus de deux personnages ou événements qui, par leur envergure ou<br />
leur importance, pouvaient être des sources de motivation et de fierté<br />
collectives15. Cette même enquête soulignait par ailleurs le fait que, dans leur<br />
ensemble, les Canadiens croyaient impératif de mettre plus d’efforts à faire<br />
connaître l’histoire nationale, ses personnages principaux, ses événements<br />
significatifs, etc. Malheureusement, aucune question spécifique n’invitait les<br />
répondants (que l’on avait catégorisé par appartenance linguistique, par lieu de<br />
résidence et par tranche d’âge) à préciser ce qui, dans la matière du passé,<br />
devait être promu au rang d’histoire nationale. On peut raisonnablement<br />
penser que les réponses, donc que les trames historiques proposées, auraient<br />
été nombreuses et éclatées, surtout si l’on avait réalisé l’enquête auprès de<br />
« catégories sociales » moins classiques.<br />
L’inefficacité des gr<strong>and</strong>s récits d’édification de la nation à représenter une<br />
communauté de sens dans laquelle se reconnaîtraient les sujets politiques tient<br />
au fait que ces récits restent fondamentalement basés sur une conception<br />
dualiste de la destinée canadienne — ce qui fait que les moments forts de<br />
l’histoire collective concernent la saga ininterrompue des rapports conflictuels<br />
entre Francophones et Anglophones, entre l’Est et l’Ouest, entre le fédéral et<br />
les provinces — ; sur une espèce de conception naïve du Canada, éden dont la<br />
matérialité résiderait dans un ensemble d’images, de symboles ou<br />
89
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
d’institutions universelles suscitant le patriotisme de ses habitants (la beauté<br />
environnementale du pays, sa gr<strong>and</strong>eur et ses ressouces; les programmes<br />
sociaux; la possibilité de s’installer n’importe où sur un vaste territoire; etc.),<br />
ou encore sur la promotion de gr<strong>and</strong>s projets incarnant l’« esprit canadien ». Or<br />
de tels récits arrivent mal, en ces temps troubles, à aviver les consensus16.Ona vu plus tôt que la représentation dualiste de l’état canadien (et par conséquent<br />
de son histoire et de son actualité), bien qu’elle satisfasse divers intervenants<br />
sur la scène publimédiatique (pensons au gouvernement du Québec et à la<br />
classe politique canadienne), contrevenait à de nombreux autres. De même, la<br />
perspective unifiante et homogénéisante d’un Canada fondant sa matérialité<br />
dans l’idée d’une égalité formelle de ses sujets devant l’histoire et dans la<br />
primauté de ses normes nationales (ce qui implique l’existence d’un<br />
fédéralisme exécutif) s’accorde mal avec les perspectives et les visions<br />
spécifiques de bien des groupes. Enfin, comme l’affirmait Donna Dasko dans<br />
un article proposant une analyse très intéressante17, « nous n’avons pas vu,<br />
dans la dernière décennie, l’équivalent de la construction d’un chemin de fer<br />
transcontinental, de la création d’un réseau national de radio et de télévision ou<br />
de l’établissement d’un régime d’assurance-maladie, et il semble peu probable<br />
qu’un projet d’une telle envergure puisse être réalisé d’ici la fin du siècle »; en<br />
d’autres termes, c’est comme si l’on manquait de « matière » pour écrire<br />
l’histoire de l’« esprit canadien », si ce n’est pour fonder de nouveaux my<strong>the</strong>s<br />
unitaires, et force est de dire que les « gr<strong>and</strong>s projets de l’heure » (traités de<br />
libre échange; projet d’accord constitutionnel; désengagement de l’État et<br />
privatisation de sociétés publiques), en déconstruisant l’édifice dans lequel<br />
s’enracinait, se reflétait et se réalisait la nation, ne sont pas facteurs de création<br />
d’unité nationale.<br />
Pour étayer notre thèse d’une érosion graduelle de l’idée du Canada, on<br />
pourrait aussi faire état des résultats de deux sondages, l’un portant sur les<br />
symboles d’identité canadienne et l’autre mesurant le sentiment d’identité des<br />
citoyens18. Ainsi, les recherches sur l’opinion publique d’Environics révèlent<br />
un déclin de l’importance que les Canadiens attachent à virtuellement tous les<br />
symboles de l’identité canadienne mesurés entre 1985 et 1991 (le drapeau,<br />
l’hymne national, le multiculturalisme, le bilinguisme, la Société Radio-<br />
Canada et la monarchie) au profit d’un nouveau symbole d’identité, la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
des droits et des libertés de la personne, qui incorpore tout un train de valeurs<br />
(parmi lesquelles l’individualisme et le pouvoir de la personne) dont les effets<br />
fédératifs, contrairement à ce que l’on anticipait au départ, sont faibles. De<br />
même, à la lumière de la série de sondages Focus Canada, il apparaît manifeste<br />
que la préférence des Canadiens pour un gouvernement central fort s’est<br />
étiolée depuis 1979 au profit de l’idée de « compétence provinciale »,<br />
renforçant ainsi l’allégeance locale et contribuant au relâchement de l’unité<br />
canadienne.<br />
L’inefficacité des gr<strong>and</strong>s récits d’édification de la nation à construire une<br />
communauté de sens a jusqu’ici entraîné l’apparition d’un vide consensuel qui<br />
s’est rempli de ressentiments, d’antagonismes, de désirs de rectitude et de<br />
complaintes exprimés par autant d’intervenants sur la scène publimédiatique,<br />
provoquant ce que Dominique Schnapper appelle une « cohésion par le flou »,<br />
sorte de dissolution du lien social prophétisé (et craint) par les penseurs de la<br />
modernité. À première vue, une telle polyphonie peut être interprétée comme<br />
un moment fort de restructuration de l’esprit communautaire où chacun<br />
exprime librement son point de vue et fait reconnaître la valeur et la justesse de<br />
ses revendications. En réalité, c’est une véritable boîte de P<strong>and</strong>ore qui a été<br />
90
De l’unité et de l’indentité au Canada.<br />
Essai sur l’éclatement d’un État<br />
ouverte et, dans la mesure où le jugement et l’éthique politiques ont été<br />
remplacés par l’injonction légale et le discours des juristes, on ne sait plus<br />
comment la refermer ou en canaliser les effets générateurs. Dans cette logique<br />
de la réciprocité, un droit n’appelle pas un devoir mais advenant une réplique<br />
de l’adversaire suggère le recours à un autre droit et ainsi de suite. <strong>La</strong><br />
conséquence est évidente : au lieu de permettre le rapprochement de groupes<br />
de personnes désormais constitués en parties légales et au lieu de favoriser la<br />
recréation du sens communautaire et de l’esprit démocratique, le débat public<br />
s’enlise dans des affrontements insolubles qui atrophient davantage le<br />
politique (entendu ici comme réflexivité du vivre-ensemble et responsabilité<br />
collective des finalités de la vie sociale) 19 en plus de provoquer un<br />
recentrement des doléances vers la seule dimension groupusculaire. Ce<br />
recentrement n’entraîne aucun dépassement de la perspective des anciens<br />
récits mais, plutôt, un approfondissement de leurs limites en les remplaçant par<br />
des micro-récits qui font de l’« essentialisme » (dialectique de l’inclusion et de<br />
l’exclusion centrée sur une recherche de Soi-même en évitant la réciprocité<br />
avec l’Autre — s’agit-il du retour en force d’une sorte d’intégrisme fondée sur<br />
l’idéologie ambiguë du politically correct ? ) le point de départ et le point<br />
d’arrivée de leur rhétorique. Sous le couvert d’une richesse participative et<br />
d’un élargissement de l’espace démocratique, c’est un carnaval grotesque qui<br />
se déroule à longueur d’année, c’est une méga-inertie de l’agora qui en résulte.<br />
Triomphatrice comme jamais, la parole fragmentée (surdéterminée par la<br />
pensée légale) provoque l’aplatissement du sens civique, favorise l’avènement<br />
de l’identité narcissique et nourrit le processus techno-bureaucratique de<br />
gestion et de régulation du social qui, désormais, ne traite que des dem<strong>and</strong>es<br />
provenant d’interlocuteurs dotés de puissances variables d’intervention<br />
publique et s’étant emparés, à la suite d’une joute très compétitive et<br />
spécialisée, d’une position avantageuse au sein de l’espace discursif, puissant<br />
lieu de formation identitaire à l’ère de la société médiatique.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Nous avons parlé, tout au long de cet article, d’éclatement, de dissension et de<br />
menace de rupture du Canada. Certes, un état d’équilibre, et donc une forme<br />
d’unité et d’identité politique, celle qui s’était incarnée dans l’Étatprovidence,<br />
est en train de s’écrouler à la suite de pressions internes et externes<br />
portées par de nombreux mouvements sociaux, véritables corporations<br />
identitaires20 qui s’agitent localement, nationalement et internationalement.<br />
Cette nouvelle dynamique qui traverse l’état canadien a jusqu’ici détruit des<br />
valeurs communes et fomenté des conflits d’intérêt. Cela ne veut pas dire que<br />
toute forme d’unité soit impossible mais l’horizon semble pour l’instant<br />
bouché. Or comment sortir de l’impasse ? Sans vouloir jouer aux devins, il se<br />
pourrait bien que l’unité nouvelle du Canada se fasse dans la reconnaissance et<br />
dans l’institutionnalisation de la dissension, ce qui est une perspective assez<br />
différente de celle qui avait été préconisée sous les gouvernements de Pierre<br />
Trudeau et qui a été enchâssée dans le réaménagement constitutionnel de<br />
1982. Cette démarche de reconnaissance et d’institutionnalisation<br />
(postnationaliste?) est rendue particulièrement difficile parce que l’on<br />
s’interdit, d’un côté comme de l’autre, de réfléchir l’avenir du Canada en<br />
dehors de catégories et de modèles politiques devenus dysfonctionnels.<br />
L’insistance des participants au débat constitutionnel à recourir, pour<br />
examiner ou solutionner le « cas canadien », à des schèmes de compréhension<br />
qui renvoient à des modèles associatifs ou à des formations politiques révolues<br />
91
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
ou idéalisées (telle la Suisse par exemple), fait que l’on s’imagine pouvoir<br />
résoudre les impasses actuelles du Canada en réaménageant autrement, mais<br />
toujours dans un même cadre général, les instances d’exercice du pouvoir<br />
entre des intervenants qui, faisant fi de toute considération politique lucide,<br />
s’agitent sur la scène médiatique pour conquérir une opinion publique dopée<br />
par le charabia de constitutionnalistes eux-mêmes en voie de<br />
constitutionnalisation! À vrai dire, un tel réaménagement permettra au mieux<br />
d’aboutir à un repositionnement différent, mais toujours instable et précaire,<br />
des groupes en présence qui continueront, au-delà de tout « règlement »<br />
constitutionnel, à se livrer à des joutes de concurrence dans la logique<br />
culturelle du postkeynésiannisme. En somme, l’avenir quel qu’il soit<br />
entraînera, à moins qu’un nouveau régime politique ne soit instauré, un<br />
approfondissement des tendances à l’éclatement « par le haut » et « par le bas »<br />
de cet état. Or il importe de commencer à mesurer les effets désastreux de cette<br />
situation : l’accroissement du nombre des exclus au sein d’un pays pourtant<br />
fier de se présenter comme le premier au monde en terme de niveau de vie et de<br />
bien-être collectif; l’évincement de la parole raisonnable et du bon sens<br />
pratique par la rhétorique implacable des juristes, sophistes des temps actuels<br />
et animateurs d’une culture de la complainte institutionnalisée; et la<br />
transformation de la place publique en une arène de compétition où, munis<br />
d’une règle du calcul opportuniste, des figures rendues blafardes par la<br />
performance se rencontrent en vue de s’imposer sur des concurrents tous aussi<br />
soucieux de leur image, mirage dans lequel ils fondent … leur absence<br />
d’identité.<br />
Notes<br />
1. Nous assumons cette position. Cela dit, faute de place, nous ne procéderons pas dans cet<br />
article à une analyse comparative.<br />
2. Cf. J. Létourneau, « L’économie politique des trente glorieuses. Apport et originalité des<br />
analyses en terme de régulation », Historical Reflections/Réflexions historiques, 14, 2<br />
(1987), p. 345-379. On trouvera dans l’ouvrage de Robert Delorme et Christine André<br />
(L’État et l’économie. Un essai d’explication de l’évolution des dépenses publiques en<br />
France, 1870-1980, Paris, Seuil, 1983) une analyse historique poussée des formes de la<br />
régulation étatique dans l’occident moderne. Enfin, pour une application au cas canadien du<br />
concept de régulation monopoliste, voir les textes de François Houle « <strong>La</strong> crise et la place du<br />
Canada dans la nouvelle division internationale du travail » dans Le Canada et la nouvelle<br />
division internationale du travail, sous la dir. de D. Cameron et F. Houle, Ottawa, Éditions<br />
de l’Université d’Ottawa, 1985, p. 79-102; de Jane Jenson<br />
« Different but not Exceptional : Canada’s Permeable Fordism », Revue canadienne de<br />
sociologie et d’anthropologie, 26, 1 1989, p. 69-94; et l’ouvrage publié sous la direction de<br />
Gérard Boismenu et Daniel Drache, Politique et régulation. Modèle de développement et<br />
trajectoire canadienne, Paris/ L’Harmattan, Montréal/Méridiens, 1990, 360 p.<br />
3. Voir son article intitulé « L’identité, l’altérité et le politique. Essai exploratoire de<br />
reconstruction conceptuelle historique », Société [Montréal], n o 9 (hiver 1992), p. 1-55.<br />
4. Idée avancée par Jane Jenson dans un article inédit intitulé « Le refus de la dualité. Nouvelles<br />
revendications de la citoyenneté au Canada » à paraître dans <strong>La</strong> question identitaire au<br />
Canada francophone : récits, parcours, enjeux, hors-lieux, sous la dir. de R. Bernard et J.<br />
Létourneau, Québec, Presses de l’Université <strong>La</strong>val, 1993, coll. « Culture française<br />
d’Amérique ».<br />
5. Ibid.<br />
6. Idée développée par Gilles Breton et Jane Jenson dans un texte intitulé « Globalisation et<br />
citoyenneté : quelques enjeux actuels » publié dans L’ethnicité à l’heure de la<br />
mondialisation, sous la dir. de Caroline Andrew et al., Ottawa, ACFAS-Outaouais, 1992, p.<br />
35-55.<br />
92
De l’unité et de l’indentité au Canada.<br />
Essai sur l’éclatement d’un État<br />
7. On sait à quel point cet idéal fut porté loin par Pierre Trudeau qui, pendant tout le temps où il<br />
occupa le pouvoir, incarna l’idéal d’un nationalisme fondé sur le fédéralisme centralisateur<br />
et exécutif.<br />
8. Sous prétexte que le Canada deviendrait un pays totalement ingouvernable.<br />
9. L’ensemble du débat constitutionnel (à tout le moins la dernière ronde de négociations) est<br />
en effet envenimé par le paradigme nationalitaire qui, pour les uns et pour les autres, semble<br />
une donnée incontournable pour penser, poser et solutionner les problèmes d’aménagement<br />
des rapports politiques internes à l’union. Du côté canadien, ce nationalisme s’exprime à<br />
travers le principe de l’égalité des provinces, de l’homogénéité pancanadienne et de la<br />
primauté des normes exécutives du gouvernement central. Du côté québécois, il s’incarne à<br />
travers l’idée d’un provincialisme offensif, distinct, aux ambitions souveraines et<br />
recherchant la maîtrise d’oeuvre de sa destinée. À qu<strong>and</strong> l’avènement du post-nationalisme?<br />
10. Par culture de l’internationalisme, nous entendons cet ensemble de pratiques et de<br />
comportements, de codes de paraître et d’habitudes qui constituent autant de marqueurs<br />
distinctifs d’une élite en voie de structuration et dont le modèle existentiel, diffusé par une<br />
pléiade de media « in » allant des aéro-magazines (En Route) aux journaux d’affaires (Globe<br />
& Mail ) en passant par les revues-mode (Vogue, Uomo), définit l’horizon d’un nombre<br />
gr<strong>and</strong>issant de personnes qui s’identifient à la culture haut-de-gamme et dont le sentiment<br />
d’appartenance évolue au gré des opportunités d’investissement du capital financier,<br />
immobilier ou idéel (les idées sont en effet un capital symbolique dont la valeur se mesure<br />
désormais en terme d’« aéro-miles ») à travers le monde.<br />
11. R. Falk, « Evasions of Sovereignty » dans R.B.J. Walker et S.H. Mendlovitz, eds.,<br />
Contending Sovereignties. Redefining Political Community, Boulder/Londres, Lyne Rienne<br />
Publishers, 1990, cité dans Breton et Jenson.<br />
12. Idée développée dans J. Létourneau, « <strong>La</strong> nouvelle figure identitaire du Québécois. Essai sur<br />
la dimension symbolique d’un consensus social en voie d’émergence », British Journal of<br />
Canadian Studies, 6, 1 (1991), p. 17-38.<br />
13. « Jihad Vs McWorld », <strong>The</strong> Atlantic Monthly, vol. 269, n o 3 (March 1992), p. 53-63.<br />
14. <strong>The</strong> Work of Nations, New York, Vintage Books, 1992.<br />
15. Les résultats de cette enquête ont été publiés dans le Bulletin de l’AEC, vol. 13, n o 3 (automne<br />
1991), en même temps que les observations d’un certain nombre de commentateurs, dont les<br />
nôtres (p. 14-16).<br />
16. Pour un plaidoyer semblable mais à partir de considérations opposées, voir Michael Bliss,<br />
« Fragmented Past, Fragmented Future », University of Toronto Magazine (Winter 1991),<br />
p. 6-11.<br />
17. « Les liens qui nous unissent : l’évolution de la perception qu’ont les Canadiens du système<br />
fédéral » dans Le Réseau, vol. 2, n o 6/7 (juin-juillet 1992), p. 5-11.<br />
18. Pour plus de détails, voir l’article cité de Donna Dasko.<br />
19. Définition empruntée de Michel Freitag, op. cit.<br />
20. Aurions-nous raison d’analyser, à partir de cette idée de « corporation identitaire », le fait<br />
qu’une multitude de personnes affichent maintenant leur allégeance, leur appartenance, leur<br />
partisannerie, leurs aspirations, leurs identifications individuelles et sociales en faisant<br />
imprimer, sur les T-shirts qu’elles portent, le slogan, l’idée ou la formule-choc qui résume<br />
l’idéal, noble ou vulgaire, auquel elles croient ? Ou le fait qu’un nombre gr<strong>and</strong>issant<br />
d’entreprises, désireuses de créer chez leurs clients un sentiment d’appartenance ou de<br />
distinction fondée sur la notion de privilège, se transforment en clubs (Club Price, Club Z,<br />
Aéroplan, etc.) où l’on est formellement admis et où la détention d’une carte — d’identité<br />
corporative ? — donne droit à des avantages refusés à ceux qui n’en sont pas titulaires ?<br />
93
Richard Sigurdson<br />
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada:<br />
A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Critics *<br />
Abstract<br />
Although various leading scholars have long been concerned that some<br />
aspects of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms would have an<br />
unwelcome influence upon Canada’s political institutions <strong>and</strong> processes, a<br />
recent, more ideological, academic attack on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has developed. <strong>The</strong><br />
author’s intention in this paper is to outline <strong>and</strong> discuss this new development,<br />
which can be called “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia,” <strong>and</strong> to discuss its effects on Canadian<br />
political discourse. In particular, <strong>the</strong>re are two fundamental strains of<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia—left- <strong>and</strong> right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia—that rely upon<br />
curiously similar arguments about <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> perils of<br />
judicial review. <strong>The</strong> author argues that <strong>the</strong>se critiques are unnecessarily<br />
alarmist, <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes are largely unable to provide attractive<br />
reasons to believe that Canada would be better off without an entrenched<br />
charter.<br />
Résumé<br />
Ce n’est pas d’hier que des spécialistes en vue s’inquiètent des effets sur les<br />
institutions et le processus politiques canadiens de certains aspects de la<br />
<strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits et libertés. Depuis peu, cependant, on assiste au<br />
déferlement d’une nouvelle vague d’attaques à caractère plus idéologique<br />
originant des milieux universitaires. L’auteur de cet article entend décrire et<br />
examiner ce phénomène, qu’on peut baptiser « chartophobie », et d’en<br />
apprécier l’influence sur le discours politique au Canada. On observe deux<br />
types principaux de chartophobie — celle de gauche et celle de droite — qui,<br />
curieusement, font appel aux mêmes arguments pour décrier les effets de la<br />
<strong>Charte</strong> ainsi que les dangers de la judiciarisation. Selon l’auteur, ces critiques<br />
sont largement exagérées et les chartophobes n’offrent guère de raisons<br />
valables à l’encontre de la constitutionnalisation des droits et des libertés.<br />
One reason for <strong>the</strong> failure of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord that was often cited by<br />
its critics was <strong>the</strong> alleged damage it would do to <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
<strong>and</strong> Freedoms. <strong>The</strong>re were those, of course, who insisted that such fears were<br />
unfounded, that <strong>the</strong> Accord would do no harm to <strong>the</strong> precious <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Seldom<br />
did we hear from anyone who might say that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is not worth<br />
protecting, that it was a mistake to enter into <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>l<strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> first place. For<br />
<strong>the</strong>se sorts of arguments, one has to turn to academics, many of whom are<br />
highly critical, not just of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms<br />
specifically but of <strong>the</strong> constitutional entrenchment <strong>and</strong> codification of rights in<br />
general.<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Various writers have long suggested that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s “importance in terms of<br />
Canada’s constitutional future is that it is centralizing, legalizing <strong>and</strong><br />
Americanizing” (Cheffins <strong>and</strong> Johnson, 1986: 148). And many leading<br />
scholars have been critical, or at least sceptical, of <strong>the</strong>se tendencies right from<br />
<strong>the</strong> start. For instance, Donald Smiley (1983) worried that <strong>the</strong> attempt to<br />
achieve national unity by means of a centralizing, entrenched charter would<br />
have precisely <strong>the</strong> opposite effect to <strong>the</strong> one desired. Peter Russell (1983) told<br />
us that <strong>the</strong> principal impact of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would be to “judicialize politics <strong>and</strong><br />
politicize <strong>the</strong> judiciary” <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> danger of this would lie not so much in <strong>the</strong><br />
fact that non-elected judges would impose <strong>the</strong>ir will in an undemocratic<br />
fashion, but that social <strong>and</strong> political questions would become transformed into<br />
abstract, technical ones that <strong>the</strong> bulk of <strong>the</strong> citizenry will feel incompetent to<br />
debate <strong>and</strong> attempt to resolve. And William Christian <strong>and</strong> Colin Campbell<br />
(1983) warned that <strong>the</strong> adoption of a charter would shift Canadian political<br />
culture away from its tory <strong>and</strong> collectivist past towards a much more<br />
individualistic, Lockean liberal focus. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, that <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms would exacerbate <strong>the</strong> trend which George<br />
Grant (1965) so eloquently lamented.<br />
In this paper I wish to take a closer look at a more recent trend in <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
scholarship—one that has produced a highly normative literature, often on <strong>the</strong><br />
basis of <strong>the</strong> observations noted above. My intention, <strong>the</strong>n, is to outline <strong>and</strong><br />
discuss this new, more ideological, academic attack upon <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms. I will refer to this anti-<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> position as<br />
“<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia” because I see in it not just a scepticism about our specific<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> but a more generalized fear of, <strong>and</strong> antipathy towards, any<br />
constitutionally entrenched bill or charter of human rights in a modern, liberal,<br />
democratic state. I think that this anti-<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> attitude is unnecessarily<br />
alarmist—that is, I can find little concrete evidence to support <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobic account of what is going on in <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>l<strong>and</strong>. I will argue, as well,<br />
that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes are largely unable to provide appropriate alternative<br />
methods for addressing <strong>the</strong> major social <strong>and</strong> economic concerns of a modern<br />
<strong>and</strong> diverse liberal democracy. My main strategy, however, is not to<br />
counterattack with discussions of specific provisions <strong>and</strong> cases <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
interpretation. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, I am concerned with <strong>the</strong> rhetorical significance of<br />
recent anti-<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> scholarship <strong>and</strong> will discuss its effects on our political<br />
discourse.<br />
In particular, I will identify two fundamental strains of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia— leftwing<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia <strong>and</strong> right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia—that rely upon curiously<br />
similar arguments about <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> perils of judicial<br />
review. In fact, both left- <strong>and</strong> right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes assail <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in<br />
<strong>the</strong> way best calculated to evoke shock <strong>and</strong> horror in a society like ours—that<br />
is, <strong>the</strong>y accuse it of generating anti-democratic political consequences. As we<br />
will see, <strong>the</strong>re are some interesting points of overlap between <strong>the</strong>se two types<br />
of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia <strong>and</strong> it is worth pondering just what this tells us about <strong>the</strong><br />
persistence of certain Canadian intellectual traditions. Of course, <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
significant differences, too, <strong>and</strong> we will have to explore <strong>the</strong> arguments used to<br />
portray <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> as an instrument of anti-democracy <strong>and</strong> what each side<br />
means by “democratic”.<br />
My discussion will be presented in three parts. First, I will outline <strong>and</strong> explain<br />
<strong>the</strong> major objections to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> put forward by leading, leftist, legal<br />
scholars. Second, I will look at <strong>the</strong> critique of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> politics by<br />
conservatives, mainly in <strong>the</strong> discipline of political science. In <strong>the</strong> third section,<br />
96
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada:<br />
A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Critics<br />
I will review <strong>the</strong> arguments, try to show that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes have not made<br />
a convincing case, <strong>and</strong> sketch a defence—albeit a qualified one—of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, warts <strong>and</strong> all.<br />
Left-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia<br />
I shall begin with a discussion of <strong>the</strong> left-wing fear of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. This was<br />
evident during <strong>the</strong> 1981 constitutional negotiations in <strong>the</strong> position taken by<br />
Saskatchewan Premier Alan Blakeney, who feared, among o<strong>the</strong>r things, that<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would have a centralizing influence on Canadian federalism. Still<br />
smarting from recent Supreme Court decisions against his province in CIGOL<br />
(1978) <strong>and</strong> Potash (1979), Blakeney did not relish <strong>the</strong> prospect of federallyappointed<br />
courts setting uniform national st<strong>and</strong>ards, often in policy areas of<br />
exclusive provincial jurisdiction.<br />
What is more, Blakeney was certain that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would constitute a threat<br />
to <strong>the</strong> interests of organized labour. He based this opinion, in part, on his<br />
critical observations of <strong>the</strong> American experience, where <strong>the</strong> Bill of Rights has<br />
been used to strike down laws setting minimum wages, minimum hours of<br />
work, etc. (Greunding, 1990: 192). Blakeney was convinced, moreover, that<br />
his province’s progressive social programs, such as medicare, might have been<br />
struck down by a conservative court. Since he considered <strong>the</strong> state as an<br />
instrument for providing important public services while pursuing greater<br />
equity for all citizens, Blakeney could see no benefit in a charter that would<br />
restrain government in order to protect <strong>the</strong> rights of citizens to be free from<br />
state interference in <strong>the</strong>ir economic or social lives. Indeed, he was “aghast that<br />
any social democratic party would be in favour of transferring power from<br />
legislatures to courts” (Greunding, 1990: 196).<br />
An additional, more personal, dimension to Blakeney’s opposition to <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> links him to a significant British-tory streak within <strong>the</strong> tradition of<br />
English-Canadian social democracy. That is, Blakeney simply preferred <strong>the</strong><br />
tory-collectivist features of <strong>the</strong> British parliamentary tradition over <strong>the</strong> liberal<br />
individualism of <strong>the</strong> US model <strong>and</strong> its rights-based constitution. <strong>The</strong> son of a<br />
traditional Tory family in Nova Scotia, product of a Loyalist legal education at<br />
Dalhousie <strong>and</strong> a British one at Oxford, Blakeney defined himself as a “British<br />
constitutional lawyer type” who believes that rights are best protected by<br />
Parliament <strong>and</strong> not by a constitution which is interpreted by <strong>the</strong> courts. After<br />
all, he said, “<strong>the</strong> British Parliament has worked not all that badly” (Greunding,<br />
1990: 192). Not surprisingly, <strong>the</strong>n, Blakeney was an adamant champion of<br />
parliamentary sovereignty throughout <strong>the</strong> constitutional negotiations,<br />
reluctantly giving in to <strong>the</strong> pressure to accept an entrenched charter only once<br />
he was assured that <strong>the</strong>re would be a clause allowing legislatures to make laws<br />
“notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing” certain rights. And even on this matter he proved to be a<br />
tenacious <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobe, dem<strong>and</strong>ing for longer than anyone else that both <strong>the</strong><br />
gender equality provision in Section 28 <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> aboriginal rights clause in<br />
Section 35 should remain within <strong>the</strong> jurisdiction of <strong>the</strong> provincial override.<br />
It must be noted, of course, that Blakeney’s position was far from being <strong>the</strong><br />
majority one within his own party, especially at <strong>the</strong> national level. Indeed,<br />
support for an entrenched charter had been party policy since <strong>the</strong> days when<br />
M.J. Coldwell was leader of <strong>the</strong> CCF. What is more, Blakeney’s opposition to<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> put him in direct <strong>and</strong> public conflict with <strong>the</strong> national party leader,<br />
Ed Broadbent, with party elders Tommy Douglas, David Lewis <strong>and</strong> Stanley<br />
Knowles, <strong>and</strong> with several groups usually supportive of <strong>the</strong> party, including<br />
97
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
civil libertarian <strong>and</strong> feminist organizations. In <strong>the</strong> end, <strong>the</strong> national party<br />
backed <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. In fact, <strong>the</strong> only NDP MP to vote against <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>,<br />
Svend Robinson, did so not because it undermined parliamentary sovereignty<br />
but because it included a legislative override clause. Since <strong>the</strong>n, leftist<br />
politicians have rarely been vocal in <strong>the</strong>ir opposition to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> lately<br />
prefer a strategy of attempting to increase <strong>the</strong> list of constitutionally protected<br />
rights to include, for example, social <strong>and</strong> economic entitlements to be set out in<br />
some sort of social charter.<br />
Nowadays, <strong>the</strong>n, pure left-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia is most evident in <strong>the</strong> academy,<br />
most notably in writings by Canadian legal scholars (ra<strong>the</strong>r than political<br />
scientists). <strong>The</strong> most thorough example of this can be found in Michael<br />
M<strong>and</strong>el’s book, <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Legalization of Politics in<br />
Canada (1989). Excellent examples can also be found in articles by Joel Bakan<br />
(1991) <strong>and</strong> Robert Martin (1991). But perhaps <strong>the</strong> most vociferous leftist<br />
assaults on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> have been launched by Andrew Petter, who is now<br />
British Columbia’s Aboriginal Affairs Minister, <strong>and</strong> Osgoode Hall <strong>La</strong>w<br />
School’s Alan Hutchinson (Petter, 1986, 1987, 1989; Petter <strong>and</strong> Hutchinson,<br />
1988, 1989, 1990; <strong>and</strong> Hutchinson, 1989, 1991).<br />
Simply put, <strong>the</strong>se scholars argue that despite its marketing as part of a<br />
“people’s package” <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is yet ano<strong>the</strong>r tool for <strong>the</strong> advancement of <strong>the</strong><br />
private interests of corporations, professionals, <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r privileged groups at<br />
<strong>the</strong> expense of workers, <strong>the</strong> unemployed, women, aboriginals, racial<br />
minorities, <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r socially <strong>and</strong> economically disadvantaged Canadians.<br />
<strong>The</strong> principal lines of argument advanced to support this conclusion involve<br />
discussions of (1) <strong>the</strong> nature of rights; (2) <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> judicial process<br />
itself, including problems with access to <strong>the</strong> judicial system <strong>and</strong> concerns with<br />
<strong>the</strong> composition of <strong>the</strong> judiciary; <strong>and</strong> (3) <strong>the</strong> Americanizing influence of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. First, left-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> critics suggest that all those who supported <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> because <strong>the</strong>y saw it as a means of advancing <strong>the</strong> interests of<br />
disadvantaged Canadians failed to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> true nature of rights, i.e., that<br />
“<strong>the</strong> conferral of rights under a charter is a zero-sum ra<strong>the</strong>r than a positive-sum<br />
game” (Petter, 1986:474). Hence, exp<strong>and</strong>ing rights for some groups will result<br />
in <strong>the</strong> loss of entitlements for o<strong>the</strong>rs. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> disadvantaged will not be<br />
on <strong>the</strong> winning side of <strong>the</strong>se disputes because of <strong>the</strong> ideological nature of <strong>the</strong><br />
rights enshrined in our <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. As Andrew Petter puts it, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is “a 19th<br />
century document let loose on a 20th century welfare state. <strong>The</strong> rights in <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> are founded on <strong>the</strong> belief that <strong>the</strong> main enemies of freedom are not<br />
disparities in wealth nor concentrations of private power, but <strong>the</strong> state” (Petter,<br />
1987: 857).<br />
In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong> rights conferred in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> are largely negative rights<br />
aimed at protecting individuals from state interference ra<strong>the</strong>r than positive<br />
rights or entitlements to, say, employment, shelter or health care services. And<br />
since <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> politics is a zero-sum game, private rights are given to<br />
individuals only insofar as <strong>the</strong>y are taken away from governments <strong>and</strong> public<br />
institutions. This explains why <strong>the</strong> judicial activism of <strong>the</strong> courts has so far<br />
been confined to cases dealing with <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s legal rights provisions (e.g.,<br />
procedural rights of accused persons, prisoners <strong>and</strong> immigrants). Individuals<br />
<strong>and</strong> groups without much social power are sometimes beneficiaries of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
legal rights decisions; but, from <strong>the</strong> perspective of <strong>the</strong> legal left, <strong>the</strong> real<br />
winners are criminal lawyers <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> system itself—<strong>the</strong> former benefits from<br />
more money <strong>and</strong> prestige, <strong>the</strong> latter benefits from much needed legitimation<br />
services (M<strong>and</strong>el, 1989: 128-83).<br />
98
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada:<br />
A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Critics<br />
Petter <strong>and</strong> his colleagues see it as ironic that <strong>the</strong> groups who supported <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> as a means of aiding <strong>the</strong> socially <strong>and</strong> economically disadvantaged are<br />
those who insist most forcefully upon <strong>the</strong> need for greater positive intervention<br />
by government. This is ironic since it is <strong>the</strong>se very groups who are likely to<br />
suffer <strong>the</strong> loss of hard-won entitlements as courts inhibit governmental ability<br />
to implement measures aimed at achieving greater social justice. Like<br />
Blakeney before him, <strong>the</strong>n, Petter fears that <strong>the</strong> power of governments to<br />
provide social services, to attempt to redistribute economic resources, <strong>and</strong> to<br />
regulate private conduct will be successfully attacked in <strong>the</strong> courts (Petter,<br />
1989: 152). Indeed, <strong>the</strong>re is already a body of evidence to suggest that some of<br />
this is now occurring—e.g., corporations are using <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> to protect<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves against governmental regulation <strong>and</strong> control (M<strong>and</strong>el, 1989: 217-<br />
38; Martin, 1991: 124-25).<br />
In <strong>the</strong>ir second line of attack on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, leftist legal scholars argue that its<br />
supporters who see it as a distributive instrument are wrong because <strong>the</strong>y fail to<br />
underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> ideological nature of <strong>the</strong> judicial framework in which <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
rights operate. “In a word,” explains Michael M<strong>and</strong>el, “<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has<br />
legalized our politics. But legalized politics is <strong>the</strong> quintessential conservative<br />
politics” (1989: 4). <strong>The</strong>re are two interrelated dimensions to this analysis of <strong>the</strong><br />
adjudicative process: <strong>the</strong> first concerns <strong>the</strong> unequal access to <strong>the</strong> judicial<br />
process <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r concerns <strong>the</strong> composition of <strong>the</strong> judiciary <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> biases<br />
of <strong>the</strong> courts.<br />
On <strong>the</strong> former matter, critics observe that access to <strong>the</strong> courts is extremely<br />
unequal. Although <strong>the</strong> formal equality provisions that govern <strong>the</strong> legal system<br />
entitle all to litigate, litigation is very expensive. Consequently, “oppressed<br />
<strong>and</strong> disempowered groups who are <strong>the</strong> supposed beneficiaries of progressive<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> litigation will, because of <strong>the</strong>ir lack of resources, be <strong>the</strong> least likely to<br />
have genuine access to <strong>the</strong> courts” (Bakan, 1991: 318). And even if <strong>the</strong>se<br />
groups are able to muster enough cash to get into court in <strong>the</strong> first place, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
are likely to be at a competitive disadvantage since <strong>the</strong> lawyers on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
side, representing business or government, will have greater resources to fight<br />
<strong>the</strong> case. Groups representing left-wing causes are thus in a no-win situation<br />
when it comes to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>: if <strong>the</strong>y resist <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> litigation <strong>the</strong>y may risk <strong>the</strong><br />
eradication of legislation beneficial to <strong>the</strong>ir interests; but if <strong>the</strong>y do succumb to<br />
<strong>the</strong> pressure to defend or promote <strong>the</strong>ir causes in court, that will mean that<br />
money, time <strong>and</strong> energy will be taken away from lobbying <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r forms of<br />
political action (Petter, 1987: 859; M<strong>and</strong>el, 1989: 70).<br />
As well as <strong>the</strong>se worries about unequal access, leftist scholars have raised<br />
concerns about <strong>the</strong> unrepresentativeness of <strong>the</strong> judiciary <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> ideological<br />
biases within <strong>the</strong> judicial system. Judges in Canada are for <strong>the</strong> most part white,<br />
male <strong>and</strong> wealthy. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> legal training <strong>and</strong> work experience of judges<br />
tends to encourage affinities between <strong>the</strong> attitudes <strong>and</strong> beliefs of those on <strong>the</strong><br />
bench <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> interests of litigants who represent <strong>the</strong> social <strong>and</strong> economic elite.<br />
Thus <strong>the</strong>re exists an inevitable set of judicial biases against <strong>the</strong> economically<br />
<strong>and</strong> socially disadvantaged. By legalizing politics, <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has vastly<br />
enhanced <strong>the</strong> political power of lawyers <strong>and</strong> judges who possess nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
“background, <strong>the</strong> experience, [n]or <strong>the</strong> training to comprehend <strong>the</strong> social<br />
impact of claims made to <strong>the</strong>m under <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, let alone to resolve those<br />
claims in ways that promote, or even protect, <strong>the</strong> interests of disadvantaged<br />
Canadians” (Petter, 1989: 157).<br />
99
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Finally, left-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes have noted that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has effected a<br />
shift from a British to an American conception of <strong>the</strong> appropriate relations<br />
between <strong>the</strong> legal profession <strong>and</strong> representative institutions. In particular, <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has promoted a redefinition of <strong>the</strong> judicial role along American lines.<br />
Unelected <strong>and</strong> unaccountable judges increasingly see <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court as<br />
<strong>the</strong> guardian of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> ra<strong>the</strong>r than simply as an adjudicator of<br />
disputes between parties. For many left-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes this is an antidemocratic<br />
departure from our traditions of parliamentary supremacy. No one<br />
is more upset about this than Robert Martin, who complains that<br />
“Parliamentary government was <strong>the</strong> democratic heart of our political system.<br />
To subvert parliamentary government in Canada is, <strong>the</strong>n, to subvert<br />
democracy” (1991: 123).<br />
Martin goes on to discuss three ways in which <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has been used in <strong>the</strong><br />
process of <strong>the</strong> Americanization of Canada. First, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> undermines <strong>the</strong><br />
sense of Canadian uniqueness. Now that we have a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> similar in most<br />
respects to <strong>the</strong> US Bill of Rights, we are quickly forgetting that we once had<br />
our own values, institutions <strong>and</strong> practices. And it does not help that Canadian<br />
courts, in <strong>the</strong> absence of any significant history of home-grown civil liberties<br />
case law, have relied upon American precedents to determine solutions to<br />
Canadian legal problems. This underlines <strong>the</strong> fact that large numbers of<br />
Canadians, especially students, now believe that prior to <strong>the</strong> enactment of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in 1982 Canadians enjoyed virtually no rights.<br />
Second, Martin complains that Canadian judges have taken to proclaiming <strong>the</strong><br />
social <strong>and</strong> political primacy of <strong>the</strong> individual. Not only is this contrary to our<br />
tory past, but it undermines <strong>the</strong> potential legitimacy of collectivist public<br />
policy. We are being taught to conceptualize our needs, desires <strong>and</strong> whims as<br />
rights. This rights-thinking, by its nature, is alienating <strong>and</strong> socially divisive.<br />
Michael M<strong>and</strong>el (1989: 239) agrees, adding that <strong>the</strong> individualism of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> can be damaging to subordinate groups, such as women <strong>and</strong><br />
aboriginals, who see <strong>the</strong>ir interests best served by <strong>the</strong> protection of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
collective rights ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> individual rights of <strong>the</strong>ir members. And Petter<br />
<strong>and</strong> Hutchinson (1988: 292) point out that <strong>the</strong> individualizing thrust of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
rights has allowed judges to support a mythical public/private distinction that<br />
limits <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s applicability to legislative or governmental action while<br />
excluding from <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> scrutiny <strong>the</strong> major source of inequality within our<br />
society—<strong>the</strong> maldistribution of private property entitlements among<br />
individuals.<br />
Third, Martin argues that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has encouraged <strong>the</strong> contemporary<br />
process of deligitimizing politics <strong>and</strong> worshipping economics. It does so<br />
because <strong>the</strong> negative nature of rights means that <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases almost<br />
inevitably involve an individual seeking protection against <strong>the</strong> strong arm of<br />
<strong>the</strong> state. So, Martin assumes, if rights are seen as “good,” <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> state will be<br />
seen as “bad.” This process is especially insidious in Canada, Martin worries,<br />
since here <strong>the</strong>re has traditionally been a higher acceptance rate for positive<br />
state action than in <strong>the</strong> USA. In some ways, Canadian society has been a virtual<br />
creation of state action, <strong>and</strong> state institutions have played a decisive role in <strong>the</strong><br />
development of a unique Canadian identity. Hence, “to put <strong>the</strong> legitimacy of<br />
<strong>the</strong> state in doubt is to put <strong>the</strong> legitimacy of Canada in doubt” (Martin, 1991:<br />
130).<br />
It is interesting to note, in conclusion, that <strong>the</strong> left-wing attack on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
concerns almost exclusively its promise to better protect fundamental rights<br />
100
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada:<br />
A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Critics<br />
<strong>and</strong> freedoms. Leftist legal scholars are largely silent on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r primary<br />
political purpose of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, as identified by Peter Russell, which “has to<br />
do with national unity <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s capacity to offset, if not reverse, <strong>the</strong><br />
centrifugal forces which some believe threaten <strong>the</strong> survival of Canada as a<br />
unified country” (1983: 30). Nor do <strong>the</strong>y raise any concerns about <strong>the</strong> process<br />
that Alan Cairns has traced. In his writings, Cairns has shown how a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
that emphasizes <strong>the</strong> rights of citizens ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> powers of governments<br />
tends to transform, in his words, a “Government’s <strong>Constitution</strong>” to a “Citizens’<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>” (1991: 108-38, 199-222).<br />
Why is it that <strong>the</strong> leftist fear of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is not so great when it comes to its<br />
centralizing influence? One reason might be that socialists <strong>and</strong> social<br />
democrats in Canada have historically believed that a strong central<br />
government is necessary in order to redistribute wealth <strong>and</strong> income, to provide<br />
social security <strong>and</strong> to constrain <strong>the</strong> power of big business. To <strong>the</strong> extent that <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> actually works as a nationalizing force, <strong>the</strong>n, it is consistent with social<br />
democratic purposes. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> left is not about to lament <strong>the</strong> demise of<br />
elite accommodation (“eleven men in suits deciding <strong>the</strong> nation’s future”) if <strong>the</strong><br />
result is an increased role in <strong>the</strong> decision-making process for representatives of<br />
various citizens’ groups—e.g., women’s groups, aboriginal groups <strong>and</strong><br />
minority groups. To <strong>the</strong> extent that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> really works to make ours more<br />
of a citizens’ constitution, <strong>the</strong>n, it is again consistent with social democratic<br />
principles.<br />
Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia<br />
Turning next to right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia, we should note that it, too, was<br />
present during <strong>the</strong> 1981 negotiations in <strong>the</strong> person of Manitoba Premier<br />
Sterling Lyon—“<strong>the</strong> stubby, irascible, Praetorian guardsman of a vanishing<br />
British Canada” (Sheppard <strong>and</strong> Valpy, 1982: 10-11). Premier Lyon expressed<br />
concerns that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would undermine <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>the</strong> monarchy in Canada<br />
<strong>and</strong> that it would dictate <strong>the</strong> behaviour of provincial governments in relation to<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir religious, ethnic <strong>and</strong> ideological minorities. Most importantly, however,<br />
he saw entrenched rights as a threat to <strong>the</strong> doctrine of parliamentary<br />
supremacy. In <strong>the</strong> end, <strong>the</strong>se views held even less sway than did Blakeney’s.<br />
As we know, Lyon, who had returned to Manitoba to fight a provincial<br />
election, suffered <strong>the</strong> indignity of being shut out, along with Quebec’s<br />
representatives, of <strong>the</strong> all-night negotiations that produced a draft agreement<br />
for <strong>the</strong> patriation of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> with a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms.<br />
Lyon himself went down to electoral defeat <strong>and</strong>, since <strong>the</strong>n, conservative<br />
politicians, like <strong>the</strong>ir leftist brethren, have ceased to play leading roles in <strong>the</strong><br />
anti-<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> movement.<br />
Nowadays one has to look to representatives of right-wing interest groups to<br />
find a concerted political attack on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> its values. For example,<br />
REAL Women argues that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is being used by feminist group elites<br />
promoting <strong>the</strong>ir own personal extremist views to force governments to allow<br />
abortion, extend rights to same sex couples, provide universal subsidized<br />
childcare, <strong>and</strong> implement pay equity <strong>and</strong> affirmative action schemes. Many<br />
concerns have been raised in <strong>the</strong> conservative media as well—i.e., that<br />
expensive social programs will be forced on governments by courts<br />
sympa<strong>the</strong>tic to <strong>the</strong> needs of various equality-seeking groups (Simpson,<br />
1992a). Ano<strong>the</strong>r fear is that <strong>the</strong> “substantive equality” (equality of results)<br />
sought by <strong>the</strong>se groups will have to come at public expense <strong>and</strong> at <strong>the</strong> costs of<br />
<strong>the</strong> idea that formal rights must be enjoyed equally by all members of<br />
101
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
society—as Clifford Lincoln would say, that “rights are rights are rights”<br />
(Simpson, 1992b: 14A).<br />
Of course, many conservative politicians have raised similar concerns about<br />
<strong>the</strong> dangers of an overtly activist court. For instance, Justice Minister Kim<br />
Campbell worried that activist Supreme Court justices might force elected<br />
politicians to spend public money against <strong>the</strong>ir wishes. She fears, moreover,<br />
that if courts become unduly activist, <strong>and</strong> parliaments lose <strong>the</strong>ir ability to make<br />
key decisions, <strong>the</strong>n politicians will use this as an excuse to abdicate <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
policy-making responsibilities <strong>and</strong> leave all difficult or controversial<br />
decisions to <strong>the</strong> courts (Campbell, 1992). O<strong>the</strong>r conservative politicians,<br />
especially in <strong>the</strong> West, adopt <strong>the</strong> position most forcefully advanced by Reform<br />
Party Leader Preston Manning that Canada should have, like <strong>the</strong> USA, a<br />
concept of rights that makes no mention of race, gender or language. In<br />
addition, many right-wing politicians in Canada wish to emulate <strong>the</strong> American<br />
model of individualism <strong>and</strong> free-enterprise by including a provision for<br />
property rights in <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms.<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, most conservative politicians today appear to accept <strong>the</strong> notion<br />
that rights <strong>and</strong> freedoms should be guaranteed <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> integrity of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
defended. Indeed, Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has gone on<br />
record saying that “<strong>the</strong> constitution is not worth <strong>the</strong> paper it is written on”—but<br />
not because <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> places unnecessary limits on <strong>the</strong> power of elected<br />
parliamentarians. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong> reason for <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister’s outrage<br />
is that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> goes too far in accommodating <strong>the</strong> supremacy of Parliament<br />
(especially of provincial parliaments) since its infamous “notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />
clause” allows for <strong>the</strong> override of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> provisions.<br />
Quite <strong>the</strong> opposite view is expressed by those academics I will call “right-wing<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes.” <strong>The</strong> most powerful figures in this movement are political<br />
scientists ra<strong>the</strong>r than lawyers, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> most prominent among <strong>the</strong>m are<br />
University of Calgary professors Rainer Knopff <strong>and</strong> F.L. Morton. <strong>The</strong>se two<br />
have espoused <strong>the</strong>ir views on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> separately, collectively <strong>and</strong> with<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r collaborators in recent books, articles <strong>and</strong> conference papers (Knopff,<br />
1988, 1989; Morton, 1990, 1991, 1992; Morton, et al., 1990; Morton <strong>and</strong><br />
Knopff, 1990, 1992); but perhaps <strong>the</strong> most accessible single source is <strong>the</strong>ir new<br />
book, <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Politics (1992). It must be noted, however, that in <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
Politics Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton take considerable pains to subordinate <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />
views to <strong>the</strong> general task of clarifying <strong>the</strong> debates about <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Thus <strong>the</strong>y<br />
portray <strong>the</strong>se quarrels in terms of <strong>the</strong> opposition between “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>philes” <strong>and</strong><br />
“<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> sceptics” (of both <strong>the</strong> left <strong>and</strong> right), not between <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>philes <strong>and</strong><br />
Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton. Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong>mselves key participants in <strong>the</strong><br />
debate <strong>the</strong>y are attempting to clarify, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re can be no doubt that <strong>the</strong>ir work<br />
should be identified as a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> critique from <strong>the</strong> political right.<br />
Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton argue that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is nei<strong>the</strong>r democratic nor consistent<br />
with <strong>the</strong> traditional liberal respect for <strong>the</strong> private sphere <strong>and</strong> limited<br />
government. <strong>The</strong>ir principal lines of argument include (1) <strong>the</strong> idea that <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> promotes equality at <strong>the</strong> expense of private liberty <strong>and</strong> individual<br />
rights, <strong>and</strong> that its implementation involves a massive <strong>and</strong> unwelcome exercise<br />
in “social technology”; (2) <strong>the</strong> notion that <strong>the</strong> judiciary has nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
democratic legitimacy nor <strong>the</strong> political competence to justify its<br />
transformation since <strong>the</strong> introduction of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> from an adjudicative body<br />
to a policy-making one; <strong>and</strong> (3) <strong>the</strong> claim that a “court party” of feminists, civil<br />
libertarians, environmentalists, <strong>and</strong> racial <strong>and</strong> ethnic minorities have, with <strong>the</strong><br />
102
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada:<br />
A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Critics<br />
aid of <strong>the</strong>ir left-liberal lawyers, used <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> to advance <strong>the</strong>ir own narrow<br />
(“special”) interests over <strong>and</strong> against <strong>the</strong> wishes of <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>and</strong> its duly<br />
elected servants.<br />
First, <strong>the</strong> right-wing critique of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is grounded on a <strong>the</strong>oretical<br />
analysis of <strong>the</strong> shifting meanings of democracy <strong>and</strong> rights from <strong>the</strong>ir classical<br />
liberal roots to <strong>the</strong> present. That is, <strong>the</strong> original idea of democratic government<br />
emphasized political rights <strong>and</strong> formal equality of individuals, while today’s<br />
rights advocates have in mind social rights <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> equality of group results. In<br />
<strong>the</strong> earlier view, rights would secure a sphere of private liberty invaded only by<br />
<strong>the</strong> few limits on personal action that could be consented to by self-interested<br />
individuals in order for <strong>the</strong>m to live as safely as possible. According to this line<br />
of thought, inequality of political or legal rights would be prohibited but o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
forms of inequality were expected to flourish. Indeed, as <strong>the</strong> greatest liberal<br />
<strong>the</strong>orists all seemed to agree, <strong>the</strong> very purpose of government was not to make<br />
individuals better or to force <strong>the</strong>m to live in equal conditions, but ra<strong>the</strong>r to<br />
protect <strong>the</strong>ir unequal capacities of acquiring <strong>and</strong> enjoying property (Knopff,<br />
1989: 17-31).<br />
In contemporary rights <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>and</strong> practice, however, <strong>the</strong> terms of <strong>the</strong> classical<br />
liberal equation are reversed—individual liberty is restricted in <strong>the</strong> name of<br />
social equality <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> private domain is whittled away in favour of increased<br />
public authority. In what Knopff calls “<strong>the</strong> new war on discrimination,” <strong>the</strong><br />
systemic deficiencies of existing society are attacked by a set of rationalist<br />
rules designed to achieve <strong>the</strong> intellectually derived criteria of “individual<br />
treatment” <strong>and</strong> “equality of result.” For Knopff, <strong>the</strong> irony of <strong>the</strong> situation is that<br />
<strong>the</strong> language of human rights, originally a bulwark of individual liberty <strong>and</strong><br />
democracy, has been appropriated by <strong>the</strong> foes of liberal democracy who use it<br />
to deny personal freedom <strong>and</strong> to suppress democratic decision making<br />
(Knopff, 1989: 213).<br />
<strong>The</strong> argument runs that today’s rights enthusiasts wish to subject essentially<br />
unplanned social processes to a variety of unrealistic <strong>and</strong> illiberal policy<br />
initiatives—e.g., anti-discrimination legislation enforced by human rights<br />
commissions, equality provisions entrenched in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> affirmative<br />
action programs. <strong>The</strong> shared characteristic of <strong>the</strong>se policy developments is<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir attempt to remake human beings by changing <strong>the</strong> social environment.<br />
According to Knopff, <strong>the</strong>se exercises at “constructivist social technology” are<br />
bound to fail since <strong>the</strong> anti-social tendencies <strong>the</strong>y seek to eradicate are rooted<br />
in nature. Consequently, “such projects in social engineering are<br />
fundamentally misconceived <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> suppression of freedom <strong>the</strong>y require will<br />
be permanent, not temporary” (Knopff, 1989: 22).<br />
Moreover, <strong>the</strong> principal result of entrenching <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has been to transfer<br />
political power from more accountable democratic institutions to relatively<br />
unaccountable judicial <strong>and</strong> quasi-judicial agencies that are under <strong>the</strong> sway of a<br />
leftist <strong>and</strong> partisan intellectual elite. That is why Morton <strong>and</strong> Knopff argue that<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is both undemocratic <strong>and</strong> illiberal. It is undemocratic because it<br />
results in a legalized politics that bypasses <strong>the</strong> traditional democratic processes<br />
of collective self-government through popular elections <strong>and</strong> responsible<br />
parliamentary government. And it is illiberal to <strong>the</strong> extent that its “most ardent<br />
partisans <strong>and</strong> practitioners are imbued with an ‘unconstrained’ vision of<br />
politics that is anti<strong>the</strong>tical to <strong>the</strong> respect for <strong>the</strong> private sphere <strong>and</strong> limited<br />
government that informs <strong>the</strong> tradition of constitutionalism” (Morton <strong>and</strong><br />
Knopff, 1992: 2).<br />
103
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
This underpins Knopff’s <strong>and</strong> Morton’s second main line of criticism of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>—that <strong>the</strong> triumph of legalized politics means that <strong>the</strong> courtroom is<br />
now more than ever a political arena <strong>and</strong> that judges are, at least potentially,<br />
“politicians in robes.” Whe<strong>the</strong>r judges will exercise this power to its full<br />
potential depends upon how <strong>the</strong>y view <strong>the</strong>ir role in <strong>the</strong> political process. Hence<br />
<strong>the</strong> crucial importance of <strong>the</strong> debates discussed in <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Politics, i.e., those<br />
over <strong>the</strong> proper balance between judicial “activism” <strong>and</strong> “self-restraint,” as<br />
well as over <strong>the</strong> merits of <strong>the</strong> leading <strong>the</strong>ories of constitutional interpretation—<br />
“interpretivism” <strong>and</strong> “noninterpretivism.”<br />
Although <strong>the</strong>y are not always dogmatic on this point, Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton tend<br />
to side with restrained interpretivism over noninterpretivist activism. That is,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y prefer a court limited to enforcing original or traditional underst<strong>and</strong>ings in<br />
a restrained manner ra<strong>the</strong>r to one that boldly exerts its policy influence in order<br />
to keep political institutions relevant in rapidly changing times. It is generally<br />
felt that this sort of judicial self-restraint should impede radical policy<br />
initiatives or, at least, reduce <strong>the</strong> possibility that radical policies will be<br />
generated by a judiciary itself over-anxious to prescribe political remedies for<br />
legal problems. <strong>The</strong> usual defence of this view is a separation of power<br />
argument: <strong>the</strong>re is a division of responsibilities between <strong>the</strong> executive <strong>and</strong><br />
legislative branches on <strong>the</strong> one h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> judicial branch on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r; to <strong>the</strong><br />
extent that judges allow <strong>the</strong>mselves to engage in courtroom politics, <strong>the</strong>y have<br />
overstepped <strong>the</strong>ir proper authority <strong>and</strong> become instruments of anti-democratic<br />
forces.<br />
Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton suggest that violations by <strong>the</strong> courts of this separation of<br />
powers doctrine have been vastly multiplied since <strong>the</strong> introduction of an<br />
entrenched charter. With its vaguely worded provisions, generally open to a<br />
variety of interpretations, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rarely involves judges in simply<br />
enforcing law-like rights against insensitive governments. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> judges<br />
are now actively involved in making laws, in creating new rights. Hence <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has been a catalyst for an unprecedented style of activist judicial<br />
review. Courts are no longer content with simply invalidating, <strong>and</strong> hence<br />
delaying (perhaps temporarily), policy decisions by elected representatives.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y now feel emboldened to tell <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r branches of government what <strong>the</strong>y<br />
have to do <strong>and</strong> how <strong>the</strong>y have to do it. This is problematic for reasons <strong>the</strong> leftist<br />
critics might have advanced <strong>the</strong>mselves: (1) it is undemocratic to have<br />
appointed judges trespassing on <strong>the</strong> policy-making jurisdiction of duly elected<br />
politicians, <strong>and</strong> (2) <strong>the</strong> judges doing <strong>the</strong> trespassing have no special<br />
competence in resolving difficult social, moral <strong>and</strong> political problems.<br />
Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton object to both <strong>the</strong> consequences of an increasingly<br />
noninterpretivist activism among judges <strong>and</strong> to <strong>the</strong> general belief that helps<br />
sustain this practice—i.e., that judges <strong>and</strong> not politicians are <strong>the</strong> best oracles of<br />
what <strong>the</strong> law requires. In <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Politics, <strong>the</strong>refore, Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton<br />
ponder alternatives to <strong>the</strong> politics of <strong>the</strong> oracular courtroom. One possibility<br />
would be to restrict judicial decisions to <strong>the</strong> immediate adjudicative context.<br />
Under this scheme, judicial opinions would be persuasive but not binding on<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r branches of government (Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton, 1992: 178-79). Ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
proposal, one which <strong>the</strong>y seem to endorse more heartily, would see <strong>the</strong> policy<br />
opinions of <strong>the</strong> judiciary fully integrated into an overtly political system of<br />
checks <strong>and</strong> balances. In this way, one could reject judicial finality without<br />
rejecting judicial review (even noninterpretivist activism). One way in which<br />
judicial policy-making can be integrated into a system of checks <strong>and</strong> balances<br />
involves what Peter Russell (1982: 32) has called “<strong>the</strong> legislative review of<br />
104
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada:<br />
A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Critics<br />
judicial review.” Although a version of this already exists in <strong>the</strong> override<br />
clause (at least for provisions in Sections 2 <strong>and</strong> 7-15), Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton point<br />
out that <strong>the</strong> existing Canadian legislative <strong>and</strong> executive institutions would<br />
have to be reformed before <strong>the</strong>y enjoyed <strong>the</strong> legitimacy necessary for <strong>the</strong>m to<br />
act as effective counterweights for <strong>the</strong> courts (1992: 232-33).<br />
In any case, replacing oracular legalism with a healthy system of checks <strong>and</strong><br />
balances would have <strong>the</strong> special merit of discouraging interest groups from<br />
using <strong>the</strong> courtroom as a political arena. If decisions by <strong>the</strong> courts are no longer<br />
final, <strong>the</strong>n interest groups will be less likely to attempt to use <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> courts to circumvent <strong>the</strong> traditional channels of policy making. Indeed, <strong>the</strong><br />
fact that so many organized interests have succeeded in doing just this is <strong>the</strong><br />
third major feature of <strong>the</strong> right-wing argument against <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton argue that “<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s main beneficiaries are special<br />
interest groups, who invoke it to persuade appointed judges to reverse <strong>the</strong><br />
decisions of democratically elected representatives” (Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton,<br />
1992: 28). In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong>se groups turn to an undemocratic institution to<br />
seek victories that eluded <strong>the</strong>m in <strong>the</strong> normal arena of free <strong>and</strong> open democratic<br />
competition. <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>the</strong>n, rewards losers who whine loudly enough<br />
about <strong>the</strong> importance of <strong>the</strong>ir specific rights <strong>and</strong> entitlements to get a<br />
sympa<strong>the</strong>tic hearing in court. Activist judges, meanwhile, will open wide <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
courtroom doors to <strong>the</strong>se interest group litigants, even those who have no more<br />
direct stake in <strong>the</strong> outcome of <strong>the</strong> case than <strong>the</strong> ordinary citizen generally.<br />
What is more, courts will hear moot cases when interest groups convince <strong>the</strong>m<br />
that <strong>the</strong> issues posed are of sufficient public importance (Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton,<br />
1992: 193).<br />
For Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton, <strong>the</strong> introduction of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has not made ours a<br />
more democratic “Citizens’ <strong>Constitution</strong>” but a constitution of special<br />
interests. <strong>The</strong> argument runs that <strong>the</strong> transfer of power from <strong>the</strong> legislatures to<br />
<strong>the</strong> courts has promoted <strong>the</strong> growth of a “court party” in Canadian politics that<br />
consists of new citizens’ interest groups, state bureaucracies, academics <strong>and</strong><br />
media elites (Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton, 1992: 79-80; Morton <strong>and</strong> Knopff, 1992: 6-<br />
21). Unlike political parties that participate in elections, <strong>the</strong> “court party” is a<br />
new social movement that prefers <strong>the</strong> policy-making power of <strong>the</strong> courts to <strong>the</strong><br />
democratic world of polling booths <strong>and</strong> legislatures. <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> provides <strong>the</strong><br />
foundation for this “court party” to <strong>the</strong> extent that it officially recognizes a<br />
number of specific groups <strong>and</strong> interests. Women receive explicit recognition<br />
in Sections 15 <strong>and</strong> 28; racial <strong>and</strong> ethnic minorities are included in Sections 15<br />
<strong>and</strong> 27; Section 15 also bestows official status on age-based groups, <strong>and</strong> on<br />
those representing <strong>the</strong> interests of <strong>the</strong> mentally or physically h<strong>and</strong>icapped; <strong>the</strong><br />
rights of minority language groups are enshrined in Sections 16 to 23; <strong>and</strong><br />
aboriginal interests are recognized in Sections 25 <strong>and</strong> 35.<br />
<strong>The</strong> politics of <strong>the</strong> “court party” involves <strong>the</strong> calculated attempts by <strong>the</strong>se<br />
groups to maintain <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir visibility <strong>and</strong> status. <strong>The</strong> key currency<br />
here is explicit recognition as a constitutional category: “<strong>Constitution</strong>al status<br />
gives a group official public status of <strong>the</strong> highest order, <strong>and</strong> groups who enjoy<br />
it have an advantage impressing <strong>the</strong>ir claims against government over groups<br />
who do not” (Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton, 1992: 82). <strong>The</strong> self interest of those groups<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s that any who are already in <strong>the</strong> “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> club” must seek to exclude<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r entrants, no matter how politically relevant. And <strong>the</strong> club members<br />
constantly fight amongst <strong>the</strong>mselves for relative power, attempting to<br />
105
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
construct pecking-orders or hierarchies of constitutionally protected interests<br />
that are to <strong>the</strong>ir own particular advantage.<br />
Needless to say, this is not a flattering picture of <strong>the</strong> role in <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> politics<br />
played by contemporary citizens’ groups. Indeed, <strong>the</strong>y are portrayed as a<br />
divisive <strong>and</strong> potentially undemocratic element in our public life. Yet even<br />
right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes recognize that <strong>the</strong> formalism of legalized politics<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> biases of <strong>the</strong> judicial process have so far combined to limit <strong>the</strong> legal<br />
victories of feminist, aboriginal, social action or ethnocultural groups. Still, as<br />
Alan Cairns <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs have shown, <strong>the</strong> greatest influence of such groups has<br />
been realized in constitutional politics. This, too, is a result of <strong>the</strong>ir official<br />
recognition as <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> club members—that is, as potentially affected groups<br />
<strong>the</strong>y dem<strong>and</strong> involvement in any process that might be consequential for <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
constitutional fate. According to many right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> critics, this has a<br />
divisive ra<strong>the</strong>r than a unifying influence. Thus, in this area at least, <strong>the</strong> dreams<br />
of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> supporters to forge a national consensus around shared <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
rights is unrealized. Indeed, it may be argued that <strong>the</strong> very multiplicity of group<br />
concerns works against <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s intended success at creating a single,<br />
unifying Canadian identity.<br />
Review <strong>and</strong> Criticism<br />
As we have seen, both left- <strong>and</strong> right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes condemn <strong>the</strong> rise of<br />
legalized politics <strong>and</strong> bemoan <strong>the</strong> undemocratic consequences of judicial<br />
review of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. But as is <strong>the</strong> case in interpretations of legal decisions, <strong>the</strong><br />
important part is less <strong>the</strong> verdict than <strong>the</strong> reasons behind it. It is here that we<br />
find considerable tension between <strong>the</strong> philosophies underlying <strong>the</strong>se majority<br />
concurring decisions.<br />
<strong>The</strong> bottom line for <strong>the</strong> legal left is that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is a disaster because it is a<br />
liberal document. For <strong>the</strong>se critics, “Liberalism is a failure: it cannot pass<br />
conceptual, social, legal, or political muster. A continued reliance on its<br />
intellectual assumptions <strong>and</strong> ideological prescriptions is indefensible” (Petter<br />
<strong>and</strong> Hutchinson, 1988: 295). <strong>The</strong> immediate need is to ab<strong>and</strong>on liberal<br />
individualism <strong>and</strong> to replace it with some form of social democracy that might<br />
be capable of responding to <strong>the</strong> inequalities of economic <strong>and</strong> political power<br />
that liberalism <strong>and</strong> its disciples permit <strong>and</strong> condone. This would entail a real<br />
redistribution of power in ways contradicting <strong>the</strong> logic of <strong>the</strong> marketplace. It<br />
would mean, at a minimum, a significant expansion of <strong>the</strong> public sector <strong>and</strong> a<br />
contraction of <strong>the</strong> private sphere (M<strong>and</strong>el, 1989: 267).<br />
Needless to say, this is not a prospect to which right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes look<br />
forward with great joys of anticipation. <strong>The</strong>y are more likely to respond, in <strong>the</strong><br />
spirit of Adam Smith, that a system of private property rights is <strong>the</strong> best way to<br />
channel natural human selfishness into socially useful projects. What is more,<br />
intervention by <strong>the</strong> state on <strong>the</strong> behalf of groups who are disproportionately at<br />
<strong>the</strong> lower levels of status <strong>and</strong> class hierarchies is seen by most on <strong>the</strong> right as a<br />
violation of <strong>the</strong> democratic idea of <strong>the</strong> formal equality of rights. It should be<br />
condemned, as well, for strictly practical reasons: human nature being what it<br />
is, success in planning <strong>the</strong> lives of o<strong>the</strong>r people or of society as a whole is likely<br />
to be limited.<br />
In any event, <strong>the</strong> eradication of free market capitalism in Canada does not seem<br />
immanent. Hence, right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes are willing to take <strong>the</strong>ir chances<br />
that <strong>the</strong> ideas of M<strong>and</strong>el, Petter, <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs on <strong>the</strong> anti-<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> left will fail to<br />
capture much of a market share in any free <strong>and</strong> open democratic competition.<br />
106
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada:<br />
A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Critics<br />
What is more troublesome, from <strong>the</strong>ir point of view, is <strong>the</strong> ascendancy of a pro-<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, left-liberal egalitarian democracy. It is this ideology that Knopff <strong>and</strong><br />
Morton fear has taken over <strong>the</strong> legal profession <strong>and</strong> justified <strong>the</strong> granting of an<br />
unfair advantage to “special” interest groups—groups based more on gender,<br />
race <strong>and</strong> ethnicity than on class.<br />
But is <strong>the</strong>re any concrete evidence to support <strong>the</strong>se claims? I think not. First,<br />
right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes can point to few cases where <strong>the</strong>ir fears have been<br />
realized concerning activist judicial review of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> forcing<br />
governments to spend money against <strong>the</strong>ir wishes. Second, recent evidence<br />
suggests that we should not exaggerate <strong>the</strong> audacity of <strong>the</strong> courts, except<br />
perhaps in legal rights cases. After an original spurt of judicial activism, <strong>the</strong><br />
Supreme Court seems to have settled back to a more comfortable role of<br />
simply ensuring that <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights are not violated flagrantly. <strong>The</strong> Court has<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r tired of actively challenging governments’ decision-making<br />
prerogatives. One indication of this is <strong>the</strong> steep drop in <strong>the</strong> rate at which <strong>the</strong><br />
Court has been striking down legislation. It is often pointed out that in its first<br />
fifteen <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> decisions <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court upheld <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claim in a<br />
staggering nine cases—a 60% success rate for <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claimants. According to<br />
one recent count, however, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> success rate fell to 17.5% in 1989-90 (7<br />
out of 40 cases), <strong>and</strong> to a minuscule 11.8% (2 out of 17) in cases outside<br />
criminal law (Eliot: 1992). <strong>The</strong>re might be several reasons for this: <strong>the</strong><br />
changing nature of cases coming forward; <strong>the</strong> conservative influence of recent<br />
judicial appointments; or a rethinking by <strong>the</strong> justices <strong>the</strong>mselves of <strong>the</strong>ir role in<br />
<strong>the</strong> political process. In any event, <strong>the</strong> evidence seems to point to a greater<br />
acceptance of judicial self-restraint, at least since <strong>the</strong> Edwards Books decision<br />
in 1986.<br />
Of course, <strong>the</strong> numbers may not tell <strong>the</strong> whole story. <strong>The</strong> very possibility of<br />
negative judicial decisions may be forcing governments to make corrections or<br />
assessments prior to <strong>the</strong> enactment of legislation. Since politicians would<br />
inevitably rely upon lawyers within <strong>the</strong>ir Justice Departments to carry out<br />
<strong>the</strong>se assessments—to make sure that legislation is “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>proof,” to use<br />
Patrick Monahan’s phrase (1992)—political power may have gravitated<br />
towards <strong>the</strong> technical, legal experts <strong>and</strong> away from <strong>the</strong> elected politicians. This<br />
means ano<strong>the</strong>r triumph for legalized politics <strong>and</strong> raises alarms about<br />
democratic legitimacy <strong>and</strong> policy-making competence similar to those<br />
sounded by left- <strong>and</strong> right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes.<br />
But is it necessarily a bad thing that governments have learned to double-check<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir plans against <strong>the</strong> prevailing values <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> provisions?<br />
Indeed, if politicians cannot convince <strong>the</strong>ir own bureaucrats that <strong>the</strong>ir policies<br />
<strong>and</strong> programs are sensible, necessary, or o<strong>the</strong>rwise “demonstrably justifiable<br />
in a free <strong>and</strong> democratic society,” <strong>the</strong>n perhaps <strong>the</strong>y have no business enacting<br />
<strong>the</strong>m, after all. And anyway, <strong>the</strong> courts are only assessing legislation according<br />
to provisions placed in a charter only recently by duly elected governments,<br />
governments that have <strong>the</strong> power to amend those provisions (or to override<br />
most of <strong>the</strong>m) in <strong>the</strong> event of overwhelming popular evidence that this is<br />
necessary. Yet Canadian governments have still failed to demonstrate that,<br />
when left to <strong>the</strong>mselves, <strong>the</strong>y can be trusted to make sure that <strong>the</strong>ir legislation<br />
passes <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards. This was proved during <strong>the</strong> three years allotted to<br />
<strong>the</strong>m to clean up statutes that might violate Section 15. Few governments made<br />
wise use of that time <strong>and</strong> many found <strong>the</strong>mselves having to react in a near panic<br />
situation.<br />
107
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Moreover, even <strong>the</strong> most progressive gains that have been made in <strong>the</strong> courts<br />
against <strong>the</strong> will of governments by certain individuals <strong>and</strong> groups have not, in<br />
my mind, come at <strong>the</strong> expense of any fundamental principles of Canadian<br />
democracy. Voting rights for people with disabilities, new rules about<br />
sentencing individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity, expansion of <strong>the</strong><br />
due process rights of alleged perpetrators or incarcerated persons,<br />
decriminalization of abortion, rollbacks of pay equity caps, rights to UIC<br />
benefits for those over sixty-five, limited expansion of benefits to same sex<br />
couples, abolition of discriminatory “spouse in <strong>the</strong> house rules” for social<br />
services—all of <strong>the</strong>se victories for underprivileged individuals <strong>and</strong> groups<br />
enhance, ra<strong>the</strong>r than undermine, <strong>the</strong> democratic character of our society. <strong>The</strong><br />
fact that <strong>the</strong>y were won in <strong>the</strong> courts ra<strong>the</strong>r than in <strong>the</strong> legislative arena does not<br />
make <strong>the</strong>m any less democratic.<br />
And what about <strong>the</strong> central component to <strong>the</strong> right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobic<br />
attack—<strong>the</strong> rise of a “court party”? Here, too, I see little evidence that<br />
feminists, anti-racists, multicultural activists, or any o<strong>the</strong>r special groups have<br />
pursued <strong>the</strong>ir social policy agendas in <strong>the</strong> courts to <strong>the</strong> disregard of o<strong>the</strong>r, more<br />
direct, forms of democratic politics. And even if <strong>the</strong>y did, would this not be<br />
more of a condemnation of our system of party politics that has shut <strong>the</strong>m out<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than of our legalized <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> politics?<br />
Indeed, <strong>the</strong> very assumption that <strong>the</strong>re are “special” interest groups that<br />
somehow shun <strong>the</strong> open glare of <strong>the</strong> public stage to pursue <strong>the</strong>ir narrow<br />
interests behind <strong>the</strong> closed doors of <strong>the</strong> courtrooms conveys a distorted image<br />
of reality. First, it ignores <strong>the</strong> fact that representatives of disadvantaged<br />
individuals <strong>and</strong> groups have been extremely active for generations in a variety<br />
of political forums, though not always successfully. <strong>The</strong> advent of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
has simply increased access to <strong>the</strong> courts of Canada for a wider range of<br />
groups. This only means that now <strong>the</strong>y, too, can approach <strong>the</strong> courts as a<br />
supplement to <strong>the</strong>ir o<strong>the</strong>r forms of activity, in <strong>the</strong> exact same way more<br />
institutionalized groups—largely business -oriented ones—have done for<br />
years. What seems to disturb right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes most, <strong>the</strong>n, is <strong>the</strong> types<br />
of groups that have now gained access. Yet groups with “special”<br />
interests—those from specific provinces or regions—have always been<br />
recognized players within federal- provincial relations or federalism<br />
jurisprudence. On this score, I fail to see why <strong>the</strong> narrow focus of regional<br />
interest is proper <strong>and</strong> legitimate, while <strong>the</strong> same is not true of <strong>the</strong> shared<br />
interest of women or people of colour.<br />
More important philosophically is <strong>the</strong> argument that special-interest group<br />
activity violates democratic ideals. This is said to be so because group or<br />
collective rights contradict <strong>the</strong> formal logic of free competition between<br />
equally rights-empowered individuals, <strong>and</strong> this makes it impossible for <strong>the</strong><br />
majority will to have <strong>the</strong> final say on all public issues. Political scientist Iris<br />
Young shows how this view assumes <strong>the</strong> intrinsic value of attaining some sort<br />
of “universality of a general will that leaves difference, particularity, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
body behind in <strong>the</strong> private realms of family <strong>and</strong> civil life” (Young, 1990: 97).<br />
Young demonstrates that this idea of an “impartial general will” is a myth that<br />
serves ideological functions by masking <strong>the</strong> ways in which <strong>the</strong> particular<br />
perspectives of dominant groups claim universality, thus justifying<br />
hierarchical decision-making structures. Hence, she argues that <strong>the</strong> full<br />
inclusion <strong>and</strong> participation of everyone in public discussion requires more<br />
than a formally equal right for individual participation—it requires<br />
mechanisms for group representation. Social justice <strong>and</strong> equality for members<br />
108
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada:<br />
A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Critics<br />
of disadvantaged groups will only be had, she says, if difference is recognized<br />
<strong>and</strong> affirmed. And this sometimes means <strong>the</strong> accommodation of special rights<br />
that attend to specific group differences in order to undermine oppression <strong>and</strong><br />
disadvantage (Young, 1989: 117-41). Our <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> certainly does not<br />
guarantee that less advantaged groups will be given <strong>the</strong> means to overcome<br />
oppression <strong>and</strong> inequality. But by recognizing <strong>the</strong> special needs of those who<br />
have historically been targets for discrimination, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> helps to prevent<br />
at least <strong>the</strong> worst rights abuses <strong>and</strong> announces our society’s commitment to a<br />
certain st<strong>and</strong>ard of decency <strong>and</strong> respect for o<strong>the</strong>rs. And contrary to <strong>the</strong><br />
suspicions of some right-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes, it does so without harming<br />
unnecessarily <strong>the</strong> privileges of those already relatively well off in terms of<br />
social <strong>and</strong> economic power.<br />
For <strong>the</strong> anti-<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> left, of course, <strong>the</strong> fact that some fundamental rights are<br />
protected is not enough. <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>the</strong>y say, recognizes only negative <strong>and</strong><br />
not positive rights, <strong>and</strong> its formalism dem<strong>and</strong>s that rights protection be applied<br />
equally to everyone. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, whatever marginal utility is derived from<br />
rights discourse is perceived by <strong>the</strong> legal left as being had at <strong>the</strong> expense of<br />
agendas for social reform. So concerned are <strong>the</strong>se scholars that some<br />
imaginary future government’s progressive social or economic policies might<br />
be overturned by conservative judges, that <strong>the</strong>y are willing to allow existing<br />
governments to do what ever <strong>the</strong>y want.<br />
This left-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobic argument exaggerates, in my view, <strong>the</strong> disutility<br />
of rights in political advancement for disadvantaged groups. It ignores (or at<br />
least downplays) <strong>the</strong> fact of a long history of Canadian legislation against <strong>the</strong><br />
interests of women, <strong>the</strong> poor, aboriginals <strong>and</strong> racial <strong>and</strong> ethnic minorities. And<br />
its argument that negative rights are disutile, even harmful, trivializes <strong>the</strong> lived<br />
experience of any person or group whose vulnerability has been truly protected<br />
by rights. As Patricia Williams, an African American legal scholar, explains:<br />
“For <strong>the</strong> historically disempowered, <strong>the</strong> conferring of rights is symbolic of all<br />
<strong>the</strong> denied aspects of <strong>the</strong>ir humanity: rights imply a respect that places one in<br />
<strong>the</strong> referential range of self <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, that elevates one’s status from human<br />
body to social being. For blacks, <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>the</strong> attainment of rights signifies <strong>the</strong><br />
respectful behaviour, <strong>the</strong> collective responsibility, properly owed by a society<br />
to one of its own” (1991: 153). Williams reminds us that one’s sense of<br />
empowerment defines one’s relation to <strong>the</strong> law <strong>and</strong> to rights. Hence, <strong>the</strong> male<br />
white left, already rights-empowered, may feel that rights discourse should be<br />
replaced by some sort of needs discourse that would justify positive state<br />
action on behalf of <strong>the</strong> truly needy. But those who have been historically<br />
disempowered may not trust that <strong>the</strong> replacement of a formal legal rights<br />
system by a more informal political one will lead to better outcomes.<br />
A case in point is <strong>the</strong> debate within aboriginal communities over <strong>the</strong> utility of<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights. Male Native leaders tend to want aboriginal self-governments<br />
to be exempt from <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Representatives of Native women’s<br />
associations see things differently: “Native women <strong>and</strong> children need a<br />
safeguard against <strong>the</strong> abuse of power by male leaders <strong>and</strong>,” Gail Stacey Moore<br />
says, “until an acceptable alternative is put in place, we insist on having <strong>the</strong><br />
safeguard of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>” (Globe& Mail [Toronto], 29 May 1992: A6). One<br />
cannot assume that <strong>the</strong> accommodation of collective or group aspirations will<br />
include <strong>the</strong> protection of significant individual rights. Nor should we assume<br />
that <strong>the</strong> majority of citizens out in <strong>the</strong> larger world want to overcome sexism,<br />
racism <strong>and</strong> alienation ra<strong>the</strong>r than heartily embrace <strong>the</strong>m. This underscores<br />
Williams’ sense of <strong>the</strong> importance of rights: “rights are to law what conscious<br />
109
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
commitments are to <strong>the</strong> psyche. This country’s worst historical moments have<br />
not been attributable to rights assertion but to a failure of rights commitment”<br />
(1991 159).<br />
On a more empirical level, as well, <strong>the</strong> left-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobic argument is a<br />
poor guide to life in <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>l<strong>and</strong>. As many have pointed out since 1982, <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms includes not just negative<br />
individual rights but also a long list of collective rights <strong>and</strong> some exemptions<br />
from rights (Elkins, 1989: 699-716). Without exhausting <strong>the</strong> list, one could<br />
mention “society’s rights” as conferred in Section 1; linguistic <strong>and</strong> minority<br />
language education rights; aboriginal <strong>and</strong> treaty rights; multicultural rights;<br />
affirmative action provisions in Sections 6(4) <strong>and</strong> 15(2); provincial group<br />
rights in Sections 38(2) <strong>and</strong> (3); <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> override provision in Section 33.<br />
Moreover, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> lacks some of <strong>the</strong> more individualistic concepts found<br />
in <strong>the</strong> American Bill of Rights, most importantly property rights.<br />
Consequently, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is not as liberalizing, individualizing <strong>and</strong><br />
Americanizing as some critics would suggest.<br />
Still, left-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes have been right to point out that <strong>the</strong> introduction<br />
of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has highlighted some real problems in our legal system: e.g.,<br />
access to <strong>the</strong> courts is unequal <strong>and</strong> judges are unrepresentative of <strong>the</strong> general<br />
population. But is this <strong>the</strong> fault of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> or are <strong>the</strong>se structures <strong>the</strong><br />
products of social forces <strong>and</strong> of individuals who want <strong>the</strong>m this way? It is<br />
certainly true, for instance, that by making it difficult for all but <strong>the</strong><br />
economically powerful to access <strong>the</strong> courts, high litigation costs help to<br />
determine how <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> guarantees will be interpreted. This is because vague<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> provisions will only be clarified through a process of judicial<br />
interpretation. If <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>and</strong> concerns of <strong>the</strong> wealthy <strong>and</strong> powerful are given<br />
disproportionate attention in <strong>the</strong> courts, <strong>the</strong>n that will shape <strong>and</strong> influence <strong>the</strong><br />
authoritative decisions about <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>and</strong> scope of various rights in ways<br />
that reflect <strong>the</strong>se vested interests (Petter, 1989: 156-57). Yet governments can<br />
make policy decisions that would equalize access ei<strong>the</strong>r by changing <strong>the</strong> rules<br />
to reduce litigation costs or by providing public funds to allow economically<br />
disadvantaged groups to participate in <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases as litigants or as<br />
interveners. <strong>The</strong> Court Challenges Program, recently terminated by <strong>the</strong><br />
Mulroney government, is a very modest example of <strong>the</strong> latter approach. <strong>The</strong><br />
crucial point, however, is that decisions about <strong>the</strong> creation, expansion <strong>and</strong><br />
demise of this program were made by elected politicians, <strong>the</strong> representatives of<br />
<strong>the</strong> many, <strong>and</strong> not by <strong>the</strong> few who are judges or lawyers.<br />
What is more, discussions about <strong>the</strong> high costs of litigation should not<br />
overlook <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>re is also an extremely high cost associated with<br />
electoral participation or with non-judicial, interest-group activity. This works<br />
to exclude socially <strong>and</strong> economically disadvantaged individuals <strong>and</strong> groups<br />
from democratic politics just as surely as it does from legalized politics.<br />
Likewise, one should not dismiss judicial review because of <strong>the</strong><br />
unrepresentativeness of judges without looking at <strong>the</strong> reality of representation<br />
in <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two branches of government. In fact, <strong>the</strong>re are more reasons to be<br />
optimistic about <strong>the</strong> possibility of greater representativeness in <strong>the</strong> judiciary<br />
than in Parliament, where <strong>the</strong> party-centred system continues to create<br />
obstacles for <strong>the</strong> advancement of females <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r disadvantaged individuals.<br />
For instance, <strong>the</strong> composition of <strong>the</strong> judiciary is closely tied to law school<br />
populations, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re have been dramatic changes in <strong>the</strong>se institutions: in<br />
1971, only nine percent of law school graduates were women; by 1991,<br />
however, a full 51 percent of law students were women. This exp<strong>and</strong>ing pool<br />
110
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada:<br />
A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Critics<br />
of female lawyers will no doubt have its effect on <strong>the</strong> composition of <strong>the</strong><br />
judiciary in a few years. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> very fact that so many leftist <strong>and</strong><br />
feminist scholars are now teaching in law schools bodes well for <strong>the</strong> future<br />
development of a progressive left-liberal orientation in <strong>the</strong> legal profession.<br />
This brings us to a paradoxical feature of left-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia—it is in<br />
many ways <strong>the</strong> more “conservative” of <strong>the</strong> two approaches. Left-wing<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes want to “conserve” or “preserve” <strong>the</strong> parliamentary status quo,<br />
partly in order to help protect those practices <strong>and</strong> attitudes that distinguish<br />
Canadian from American political culture. Yet can we assume, as Blakeney<br />
<strong>and</strong> Martin do, that our British-style, parliamentary democratic institutions<br />
work well enough as it is? A brief glance at <strong>the</strong> historical record should dispel<br />
any notions that freedom was better protected in <strong>the</strong> past by parliamentary<br />
governments than we can expect it to be by <strong>the</strong> courts in <strong>the</strong> future.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms joins four o<strong>the</strong>r instruments that have<br />
long been part of our constitutional system: (1) <strong>the</strong> rule of law; (2) <strong>the</strong> division<br />
of jurisdiction; (3) statutory bills of rights; <strong>and</strong> (4) <strong>the</strong> institutions of<br />
Parliament. But how effective have <strong>the</strong>se been as rights protectors? <strong>The</strong> idea<br />
that <strong>the</strong> rule of law is <strong>the</strong> bulwark that protects us from arbitrary treatment from<br />
<strong>the</strong> executive was brought home dramatically by <strong>the</strong> case of Roncarelli v.<br />
Duplessis in 1959. But <strong>the</strong>re are few o<strong>the</strong>r such dramatic cases. Reference re<br />
Alberta Statutes (1937) <strong>and</strong> Switzman v.Elbling (1957) prove that when courts<br />
decide on jurisdictional matters <strong>the</strong>y can also protect rights <strong>and</strong> freedoms. But<br />
<strong>the</strong>se cases were rare <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y do not demonstrate that <strong>the</strong> violation of<br />
democratic freedoms would be beyond all legislatures, only provincial ones.<br />
Moreover, <strong>the</strong> federal government’s passage of <strong>the</strong> Canadian Bill of Rights in<br />
1960 did not usher in a bright new dawn of rights enjoyment in this country.<br />
Aside from Drybones v. <strong>the</strong> Queen (1970), <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court was notoriously<br />
unwilling to strike down legislation even when it was clear that rights or<br />
freedoms mentioned in <strong>the</strong> Bill were being denied. Finally, <strong>the</strong>re is little<br />
evidence to suggest that <strong>the</strong> institutions of Parliament also serve to protect <strong>the</strong><br />
rights <strong>and</strong> freedoms of individuals. <strong>The</strong> party system <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> rules of <strong>the</strong> House<br />
of Commons help to make sure that <strong>the</strong> opposition has little weight as an<br />
important sanction against repressive laws, even if it is opposed to <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
Conclusion<br />
In conclusion, <strong>the</strong>n, I remain unconvinced by <strong>the</strong> recent crop of anti-<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
writers that we have taken <strong>the</strong> wrong path by adopting an entrenched charter.<br />
This does not mean that I think <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is perfect, that it cannot be<br />
improved upon. Indeed, <strong>the</strong> response from citizens <strong>and</strong> interested parties<br />
during <strong>the</strong> so-called “Canada Round” of constitutional negotiations<br />
demonstrates that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> suffers from several serious omissions. Most<br />
importantly, <strong>the</strong>re is a lack of a better recognition that, as self-governing,<br />
majority cultures, aboriginals <strong>and</strong> Quebeckers have claims to distinct rights<br />
that are different in status to claims made by, say, religious or ethnic<br />
minorities. <strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Accord would have addressed some of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
concerns by entrenching into <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> an inherent right to aboriginal<br />
self-government <strong>and</strong> by recognizing Quebec as a distinct society within<br />
Canada. What is more, <strong>the</strong>re has been a concerted effort in recent years to<br />
exp<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> existing list of rights to include some social or economic rights as<br />
well. It was more difficult for governments to agree to this change, however,<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord included only an unjusticiable provision<br />
111
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
committing governments to <strong>the</strong> principle of preserving <strong>and</strong> developing<br />
Canada’s social <strong>and</strong> economic union.<br />
What is more, <strong>the</strong>re are still concerns with <strong>the</strong> incompatibility between an<br />
entrenched charter <strong>and</strong> a legislative override provision. In fact, <strong>the</strong><br />
notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing clause—<strong>the</strong> only <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> provision applauded by both right<strong>and</strong><br />
left-wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobes—remains <strong>the</strong> most unpopular element of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Consequently, <strong>the</strong> Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Beaudoin-Dobbie Committee, heard pleas for <strong>the</strong> dismantling of Section<br />
33 in every city where hearings were held. Representatives from minority<br />
groups, in particular, ureed that at least Section 15 (1) should be exempted<br />
from <strong>the</strong> clause. With <strong>the</strong> legislative override still in place, <strong>the</strong>y argued,<br />
minorities <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r less advantaged Canadians remain inadequately protected<br />
from rights abuses. Any changes to this provision would require unanimous<br />
provincial consent, however, <strong>and</strong> knowing that this would be impossible, <strong>the</strong><br />
drafters of our various constitutional reform packages since 1982 have<br />
consistently left out any such change.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> end, of course, <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord was rejected in <strong>the</strong> October<br />
1992 referendum. Crucial to its defeat were <strong>the</strong> lobbying efforts made by<br />
various pro-<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> constituencies, including women’s groups, social justice<br />
advocates, <strong>and</strong> groups representing ethnic <strong>and</strong> racial minorities. Governments<br />
that supported <strong>the</strong> constitutional reforms were consistently put on <strong>the</strong><br />
defensive, forced to insist that <strong>the</strong> rights recognized <strong>and</strong> protected under <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would not be infringed or denied by any of <strong>the</strong> new provisions.<br />
Canadians, it would seem, have not only become used to life after <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>,<br />
but recognize <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> as a valuable <strong>and</strong> authoritative symbol of this<br />
country’s commitment to freedom, equality <strong>and</strong> human dignity.<br />
I would add, never<strong>the</strong>less, that in spite of all <strong>the</strong> ink spilled over it, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
is only a part of our political system as a whole <strong>and</strong> its nature <strong>and</strong> function will<br />
be shaped <strong>and</strong> formed within <strong>the</strong> same matrix of social <strong>and</strong> economic forces<br />
that influence <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r parts of <strong>the</strong> system. As a result, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has not had<br />
a dramatic effect on <strong>the</strong> distribution of wealth <strong>and</strong> power or on <strong>the</strong> level of<br />
social justice in Canadian society, nor should it have been expected to on its<br />
own. As Shelagh Day notes: “It doesn’t mean that women aren’t still being<br />
beaten, it doesn’t mean that women aren’t still earning less than men”<br />
(Victoria Times-Colonist [Victoria], 12 April 1992: A5). Of course, she is<br />
right: we still have children living in poverty; we have rampant racism <strong>and</strong><br />
homophobia; <strong>and</strong> we have people with disabilities who are prevented from<br />
achieving <strong>the</strong>ir full potential or who are not institutionalized when <strong>the</strong>y ought<br />
to be.<br />
Still, <strong>the</strong> constitutional guarantees in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> have altered <strong>the</strong> way<br />
Canadians view <strong>the</strong>ir relationship with government <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> way <strong>the</strong>y argue for<br />
change. In my view, this has been for <strong>the</strong> better. Not only has <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> given<br />
women <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r disadvantaged groups access to an additional arena of<br />
democratic participation, it has also signalled to those who resist progressive<br />
change that <strong>the</strong>y cannot so easily ignore <strong>the</strong> claims of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights-holders.<br />
In this sense, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, by holding out <strong>the</strong> prospect of attainment of equality<br />
or fairness under <strong>the</strong> law, has been a fiercely motivational force for those who<br />
have not always enjoyed much hope. It is for this reason that we must be<br />
warned against debasing rights or ab<strong>and</strong>oning <strong>the</strong> project of rights protection<br />
under a charter. “In discarding rights altoge<strong>the</strong>r,” as Williams points out, “one<br />
112
Left- <strong>and</strong> Right-Wing <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>phobia in Canada:<br />
A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Critics<br />
discards a symbol too deeply enmeshed in <strong>the</strong> psyche of <strong>the</strong> oppressed to lose<br />
without trauma <strong>and</strong> much resistance” (1991: 165).<br />
Notes<br />
* An earlier version of this paper was delivered at <strong>the</strong> annual meetings of <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
Political Science Association in Charlottetown, PEI, June 1992. <strong>The</strong> author would like to<br />
thank Ted Morton <strong>and</strong> Rainer Knopff for helpful comments on <strong>the</strong> text.<br />
Bibliography<br />
Bakan, Joel (1990). “<strong>Constitution</strong>al Interpretation <strong>and</strong> Social Change: You Can’t Always Get<br />
What You Want.” In <strong>The</strong> Canadian Bar Review 70: 307-328.<br />
Cairns, Alan C. (1991). Disruptions: <strong>Constitution</strong>al Struggles, from <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> to Meech <strong>La</strong>ke.<br />
Ed. Douglas E. Williams. Toronto: McClell<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Stewart.<br />
Campbell, Kim (1992). “Opening Remarks” to <strong>the</strong> conference “<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>: Ten Years After.”<br />
May 15-16. Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre, Vancouver BC. Forthcoming<br />
(1993) in P. Bryden, S. Davis <strong>and</strong> J. Russell (eds.), <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>: Ten Years After. Toronto:<br />
University of Toronto Press.<br />
Cheffins, Ronald I. <strong>and</strong> Patricia A. Johnson (1986). <strong>The</strong> Revised Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong>: Politics<br />
as <strong>La</strong>w. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.<br />
Christian, William <strong>and</strong> Colin Campbell (1983). Political Parties <strong>and</strong> Ideologies in Canada. 3rd<br />
Ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.<br />
Eliot, Robin (1992). “<strong>The</strong> Effect of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> on <strong>the</strong> Role of <strong>the</strong> Courts.” Forthcoming in <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>: Ten Years After.<br />
Grant, George (1965). <strong>La</strong>ment for a Nation. Toronto: <strong>The</strong> Carleton Library No. 50, McClell<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> Stewart.<br />
Greunding, Dennis (1990). Promises to Keep: A Political Biography of Alan Blakeney. Saskatoon:<br />
Western Producer Prairie Books.<br />
Hutchinson, Alan C. (1989). “Determinacy <strong>and</strong> Democracy: An Essay on Legal Interpretation.” In<br />
University of Miami <strong>La</strong>w Journal 43: 541-76.<br />
Hutchinson, Alan C. (1991). “Waiting for Coraf (Or <strong>the</strong> Beatification of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>).” In<br />
University of Toronto <strong>La</strong>w Journal 41: 332-56.<br />
Knopff, Rainer <strong>and</strong> F.L. Morton (1992). <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Politics. Scarborough: Nelson.<br />
Knopff, Rainer (1987). “What do <strong>Constitution</strong>al Equality Rights Protect Canadians Against?” In<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Journal of Political Science 20: 265-86.<br />
Knopff, Rainer (1988). “Parliament vs. <strong>the</strong> Courts: Making Sense of <strong>the</strong> Bill of Rights Debate.” In<br />
Legislative Studies 3:2.<br />
Knopff, Rainer (1989). Human Rights & Social Technology: <strong>The</strong> New War on Discrimination.<br />
Ottawa: Carleton University Press.<br />
M<strong>and</strong>el, Michael (1989). <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Legalization of Politics in Canada.<br />
Toronto: Wall <strong>and</strong> Thompson.<br />
Martin, Robert (1991). “<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Crisis in Canada.” In After Meech <strong>La</strong>ke: Lessons for<br />
<strong>the</strong> Future. Ed. David E. Smith, Peter MacKinnon <strong>and</strong> John C. Courtney. Saskatoon: Fifth<br />
House.<br />
Monahan, Patrick (1992). “<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> on Government Policy-Making.”<br />
Forthcoming in <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>: Ten Years After.<br />
Morton, F.L. (1987). “<strong>The</strong> Political Impact of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms.” In<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Journal of Political Science 20: 31-55.<br />
Morton, F.L. (1990). “Morgantaler vs. <strong>the</strong> Queen: A Political Analysis.” In A Time for Life,<br />
Abortion <strong>and</strong> Human Rights. Ed. Ian Gentles. Toronto: Stoddart.<br />
Morton, F.L. (1991). “<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Revolution <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Court Party.” Paper prepared for<br />
“Roundtable Conference on <strong>the</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> on <strong>the</strong> Public Policy Process.” Centre<br />
for Public <strong>La</strong>w <strong>and</strong> Public Policy. November 15-16. York University, Toronto Ontario.<br />
Morton, F.L. (1992). “Institutional Retooling: <strong>The</strong> Evolution of <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court of Canada<br />
from Adjudicator to Policy-Maker.” Paper prepared for <strong>the</strong> Annual Meeting of <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
Political Science Association. May 31. University of Prince Edward Isl<strong>and</strong>, Charlottetown<br />
PEI.<br />
Morton, F.L. <strong>and</strong> Rainer Knopff (1990). “Permanence <strong>and</strong> Change in <strong>the</strong> Written <strong>Constitution</strong>:<br />
<strong>The</strong> ‘Living Tree’ Doctrine <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights.” In Supreme Court <strong>La</strong>w Review,<br />
Second Series 1: 533-46.<br />
Morton, F.L. <strong>and</strong> Rainer Knopff (1992). “<strong>The</strong> Supreme Court as <strong>the</strong> Vanguard of <strong>the</strong><br />
Intelligentsia: <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Movement as Postmaterialist Politics.” Research Study 8.1,<br />
Occasional Papers Series, Research Unit for Socio-Legal Studies. University of Calgary.<br />
113
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Morton, F.L., G. Soloman, I. McNish <strong>and</strong> D.W. Poulton (1990). “Judicial Nullification of Statutes<br />
Under <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms.” In Alberta <strong>La</strong>w Review 28: 396-425.<br />
Petter, Andrew (1986). “<strong>The</strong> Politics of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.” In Supreme Court <strong>La</strong>w Review 8: 473-505.<br />
Petter, Andrew (1987). “Immaculate Deception: <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s Hidden Agenda.” In <strong>The</strong> Advocate<br />
45: 857-66.<br />
Petter, Andrew (1989). “Canada’s <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Flight: Soaring Backwards into <strong>the</strong> Future.” In Journal<br />
of <strong>La</strong>w <strong>and</strong> Society 16: 151-65.<br />
Petter, Andrew <strong>and</strong> Alan C. Hutchinson (1988). “Private Rights/Public Wrongs: <strong>The</strong> Liberal Lie<br />
of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.” In University of Toronto <strong>La</strong>w Journal 38: 278-97.<br />
Petter, Andrew <strong>and</strong> Alan C. Hutchinson (1989). “Rights in Conflict: <strong>The</strong> Dilemma of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
Legitimacy.” In UBC <strong>La</strong>w Review 23: 531-48.<br />
Petter, Andrew <strong>and</strong> Alan C. Hutchinson (1990). “Daydream Believing: Visionary Formalism <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>.” In Ottawa <strong>La</strong>w Review 22: 365-85.<br />
Russell, Peter H. (1982). “<strong>The</strong> Effect of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms on <strong>the</strong> Policy-Making<br />
Role of Canadian Courts.” In Canadian Public Administration 25: 1-33.<br />
Russell, Peter H. (1983). “<strong>The</strong> Political Purposes of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong><br />
Freedoms.” In <strong>The</strong> Canadian Bar Review 61: 30-54.<br />
Sheppard, Robert <strong>and</strong> Michael Valpy (1982). <strong>The</strong> National Deal: <strong>The</strong> Fight for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>.<br />
Toronto: Fleet Books.<br />
Simpson, Jeffrey (1992). “Rights Talk: <strong>The</strong> Discourse of <strong>the</strong> 1990s.” Forthcoming in <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>:<br />
Ten Years After.<br />
Smiley, Donald (1983). “A Dangerous Deed: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, 1982.” In And No One<br />
Cheered: <strong>Federalism</strong>, Democracy <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act. Ed. Keith Banting <strong>and</strong> Richard<br />
Simeon. Toronto: Methuen.<br />
Williams, Patricia J. (1991). <strong>The</strong> Alchemy of Race <strong>and</strong> Rights. Cambridge: Harvard University<br />
Press.<br />
Young, Iris Marion (1989). “Polity <strong>and</strong> Group Differences: A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Ideal of Universal<br />
Citizenship.” In Feminism <strong>and</strong> Political <strong>The</strong>ory. Ed. Cass R. Sunstein. Chicago & London:<br />
University of Chicago Press.<br />
Young, Iris Marion (1990). Justice <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University<br />
Press.<br />
114
Janet Hiebert<br />
Rights <strong>and</strong> Public Debate: <strong>The</strong> Limitations of a<br />
“Rights Must be Paramount” Perspective<br />
Abstract<br />
This paper focuses on <strong>the</strong> impact of rights-based language on constitutional<br />
debate. After a decade of entrenchment <strong>the</strong>re has been a tendency to embrace a<br />
“rights must be paramount” view of Canadian politics where protected rights<br />
are assumed to be paramount to all non-enumerated values. This perspective<br />
is criticized in <strong>the</strong> paper for its constraining effect on political debate. <strong>The</strong><br />
paper speculates that a “rights must be paramount” approach is only a<br />
transitional feature of learning to live with <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>; that <strong>the</strong> more we face<br />
conflicts between enumerated rights <strong>and</strong> non-enumerated values, <strong>the</strong> more<br />
likely we are to realize that <strong>the</strong> resolution of difficult <strong>and</strong> contentious political<br />
issues may not be amenable to assumptions about <strong>the</strong> primacy of protected<br />
rights. One example of this was <strong>the</strong> relative lack of rights-based opposition to<br />
<strong>the</strong> distinct society clause in 1991 which can be explained, in part, by an<br />
implicit recognition of <strong>the</strong> limitations of a “rights must be paramount”<br />
approach in accommodating Quebec’s sense of community.<br />
Résumé<br />
Cet article traite des effets sur le débat constitutionnel d’un discours basé sur<br />
la primauté des droits. Au cours des dix années qui ont suivi leur<br />
enchâssement, on a eu tendance à considérer la politique canadienne selon<br />
une optique qui affirme la « suprématie absolue » des droits<br />
constitutionnalisés sur les valeurs non inscrites dans la <strong>Charte</strong>. Or, cette<br />
perspective gêne le déroulement du débat politique. Selon l’auteure, il ne<br />
s’agit que d’une attitude transitoire permettant d’apprivoiser la <strong>Charte</strong>. Plus<br />
les oppositions entre les droits inscrits et ceux qui ne le sont pas se<br />
multiplieront, plus nous nous rendrons compte que la solution des dossiers<br />
politiques délicats et litigieux suppose la désacralisation des droits<br />
constitutionnalisés. Soulignons, à titre d’exemple, qu’on s’est très peu opposé<br />
en 1991 à la clause de la société distincte en invoquant la <strong>Charte</strong>. Cela tient en<br />
partie au fait qu’on admet implicitement la nécessité de relativiser la « priorité<br />
absolue » des droits constitutionnalisés afin de reconnaître la personnalité<br />
collective du Québec.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms has significantly influenced <strong>the</strong> way we,<br />
as a polity, assess <strong>the</strong> priorities of competing social, political <strong>and</strong> economic<br />
values. For many, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has fundamentally altered <strong>the</strong> political system<br />
by prescribing rights which are insulated from government action. This<br />
approach is misleading because it does not recognize <strong>the</strong> role of s. 1, <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s limitation clause, in accommodating values not specifically<br />
enumerated but which are demonstrably justified <strong>and</strong> consistent with a free<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
<strong>and</strong> democratic society. 1 Never<strong>the</strong>less, an unbridled enthusiasm for <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has generated a propensity to assume a “rights must be paramount”<br />
view of Canadian politics2 which affords little scope for s. 1 in justifying<br />
values not easily accommodated in <strong>the</strong> specific rights-based provisions of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
A “rights must be paramount” perspective was evident in many of <strong>the</strong><br />
interventions on <strong>the</strong> proposed <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> before <strong>the</strong> Joint Parliamentary<br />
Committee on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> in 1980-1981 which argued that <strong>the</strong> inclusion<br />
of an explicit limitation clause was not necessary because courts would impose<br />
<strong>the</strong> appropriate limits when two specific <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights collide. This implies,<br />
though, that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> itself provides exhaustive coverage of <strong>the</strong> range of<br />
values worthy of protection: that governments may not legitimately assert <strong>the</strong><br />
primacy of non-enumerated values (Hiebert, 1990, 127). A “rights must be<br />
paramount” perspective is often characteristic of <strong>the</strong> assumptions of many<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> litigants <strong>and</strong> intervenors, particularly as expressed in factums. 3 A<br />
“rights must be paramount” perspective was also assumed by some critics of<br />
<strong>the</strong> proposed distinct society clause in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke constitutional accord,<br />
in particular, Newfoundl<strong>and</strong> Premier Clyde Wells <strong>and</strong> some women’s groups,<br />
who argued that it was constitutionally illegitimate for non-enumerated<br />
collective values to be given primacy over protected <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights. More will<br />
be said of this later in <strong>the</strong> paper.<br />
Despite <strong>the</strong> ascendency of a “rights must be paramount” perspective, <strong>the</strong> paper<br />
will argue that it is not a particularly helpful way of engaging in “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>”<br />
debate. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> paper will argue that those who assume that protected<br />
rights must at all times be paramount to o<strong>the</strong>r competing values will likely be<br />
challenged by new circumstances <strong>and</strong> conflicts which fundamentally test <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
assumptions of <strong>the</strong> primacy of protected rights. <strong>The</strong>se arguments are premised<br />
on <strong>the</strong> assumptions that 1) many provisions in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> are indeterminate<br />
<strong>and</strong>, <strong>the</strong>refore, offer incomplete guidelines on <strong>the</strong> basic values that need to be<br />
respected in <strong>the</strong> course of state action, 2) <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s emphasis on individual<br />
rights may not easily accommodate <strong>the</strong> more collective or communitarian<br />
tenets of <strong>the</strong> Canadian polity, particularly <strong>the</strong> cultural aspirations of <strong>the</strong><br />
Québécois, <strong>and</strong> 3) we are in a transitional phase of learning to live with <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
A working hypo<strong>the</strong>sis in <strong>the</strong> paper is that <strong>the</strong> more we face conflicts between<br />
protected rights <strong>and</strong> strongly held values, <strong>the</strong> more we will come to realize that<br />
not only does <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> fail to provide <strong>the</strong> necessary answers, but that<br />
resolving conflicts may involve making choices that go beyond <strong>the</strong> vindication<br />
of rights-based claims. Any polity which attempts to codify fundamental rights<br />
<strong>and</strong> values will face conflicts between <strong>the</strong>se protected values <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs which,<br />
while not specifically enumerated, may also be strongly respected. In Canada,<br />
this conflict is even more inevitable given our commitment to collective <strong>and</strong><br />
general welfare values which may not be easily accommodated in <strong>the</strong><br />
primarily individualistic language of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Yet <strong>the</strong> reluctance implicit in<br />
a “rights must be paramount” perspective to recognize that s. 1 serves a broader<br />
role than to reconcile conflicts between explicitly enumerated “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>”<br />
rights4 or serve as an emergency safety valve (Cohen) places constraints on <strong>the</strong><br />
political process. It represents <strong>the</strong> potential frustration of meaningful debate<br />
about <strong>the</strong> appropriate priorities of competing social, cultural <strong>and</strong> political values.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> decade since <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> took effect, we have faced few situations in<br />
which a judicial review of <strong>the</strong> competing values at stake challenged our<br />
118
<strong>The</strong> Limitations of a “Rights Must be Paramount”<br />
Perspective<br />
intuitive, moral <strong>and</strong> political senses of what is right, just or fair, or engage us in<br />
protracted <strong>and</strong> contentious discussions of <strong>the</strong> merits of values in conflict with<br />
protected rights. <strong>The</strong> abortion debate, it might be argued, has pitted<br />
fundamentally contested views of rights-based entitlements against<br />
conflicting societal expectations; however, <strong>the</strong> full scope of this issue has yet<br />
to be addressed. 5<br />
Perhaps <strong>the</strong> best example of an issue that required a difficult choice between<br />
protected rights <strong>and</strong> non-enumerated values was <strong>the</strong> entrenchment of a distinct<br />
society clause. <strong>Constitution</strong>al recognition of Quebec as a distinct society was<br />
one of five dem<strong>and</strong>s by <strong>the</strong> Quebec government in return for participating in<br />
<strong>the</strong> 1986 constitutional renewal. Of <strong>the</strong> political issues that contributed to <strong>the</strong><br />
failure of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause most<br />
encapsulated <strong>the</strong> different perceptions of <strong>the</strong> appropriate relationship between<br />
citizens <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> state <strong>and</strong> between protected rights <strong>and</strong> non-protected values.<br />
This paper will examine debate on <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause in <strong>the</strong> 1987<br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord <strong>and</strong> 1991 federal constitutional proposal in terms of<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re has been a movement away from a “rights must be paramount”<br />
assessment of constitutional change. <strong>The</strong> pivotal role of <strong>the</strong> distinct society<br />
clause in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke round contrasts significantly with <strong>the</strong> comparatively<br />
minor role it played in <strong>the</strong> 1991-1992 constitutional discussions. Whe<strong>the</strong>r out<br />
of a change in commitment to <strong>the</strong> primacy of protected rights or a realization of<br />
<strong>the</strong> possible difficulties of accommodating Quebec’s sense of nationhood in a<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>- based constitutional order, <strong>the</strong> 1991-1992 constitutional debate did<br />
not demonstrate <strong>the</strong> same degree of concern to insulate protected rights from<br />
<strong>the</strong> possible implications of a distinct society clause. Before exploring this<br />
argument, we must first examine more closely how <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> affects <strong>the</strong> way<br />
<strong>the</strong> political process is viewed.<br />
Overview of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s Impact on <strong>the</strong> Political Process<br />
<strong>The</strong> language of rights promoted by <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has contributed to a growing<br />
tendency to assume that non-enumerated values in conflict with protected<br />
rights are constitutionally inferior. One problem with this perspective is <strong>the</strong><br />
assumption that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is exhaustive of all fundamental values <strong>and</strong> that<br />
recourse to it offers an exclusive basis for resolving rights-based conflicts.<br />
Many commentators have observed <strong>the</strong> general <strong>and</strong> vague nature of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s provisions (M<strong>and</strong>el 1989; Monahan 1987). For example, <strong>the</strong><br />
wording of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> offers no clear explanation why freedom of expression<br />
should protect <strong>the</strong> ability to advertise in one’s preferred language on<br />
commercial signs or communicate for <strong>the</strong> purposes of prostitution, or why<br />
freedom of association should not protect collective bargaining. <strong>The</strong>re are no<br />
universal or self-evident “principles” that dictate <strong>the</strong>se findings; ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
are <strong>the</strong> result of judicial reasoning or “policy” determinations. While courts<br />
develop judicial rules <strong>and</strong> principles to aid in <strong>the</strong> interpretation of rights (for<br />
example, <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court has adopted <strong>the</strong> position that <strong>the</strong> scope of<br />
freedom of expression should not depend on <strong>the</strong> content of <strong>the</strong> message) <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> itself provides little direction as to <strong>the</strong> specific circumstances that are<br />
protected by its vague <strong>and</strong> general provisions. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, even if we have <strong>the</strong><br />
utmost faith in <strong>the</strong> judicial capacity to expound, at all times, <strong>the</strong> appropriate<br />
values <strong>and</strong> circumstances protected by <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> (this is an assumption that<br />
many, including <strong>the</strong> author, are not prepared to make), can we be confident that<br />
<strong>the</strong> bureaucratic <strong>and</strong> political drafters of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> have captured all of <strong>the</strong><br />
119
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
fundamental values that we, our children <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir descendants will value in<br />
<strong>the</strong> future?<br />
It is not only <strong>the</strong> protected rights that are indeterminate of particular outcomes.<br />
Even more significant is <strong>the</strong> indeterminacy of <strong>the</strong> limitation clause in s. 1.<br />
Courts have assumed <strong>the</strong> responsibility of determining whe<strong>the</strong>r government<br />
policies that conflict with a protected right are never<strong>the</strong>less reasonable <strong>and</strong><br />
justified in <strong>the</strong> context of a free <strong>and</strong> democratic society. <strong>The</strong> difficulty for <strong>the</strong><br />
Court, however, is that <strong>the</strong> values integral to a free <strong>and</strong> democratic society are<br />
subject to dispute. <strong>The</strong>re is little reason to assume that nine judges are<br />
inherently more capable of expounding democratic principles than<br />
governments, political philosophers or citizens. Yet a core assumption in a<br />
“rights must be paramount” position is that <strong>the</strong> requirements of a democratic<br />
society can be readily inferred from <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Some consider <strong>the</strong> reference<br />
in <strong>the</strong> limitation clause to a free <strong>and</strong> democratic society <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> actual<br />
enumerated rights in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> to be one <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> same. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong><br />
specified rights in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> embody <strong>the</strong> rights necessary for a free <strong>and</strong><br />
democratic society6 <strong>and</strong>, <strong>the</strong>refore, exhaust <strong>the</strong> range of values entitled to limit<br />
a protected right.<br />
<strong>The</strong> language of rights encourages <strong>the</strong> positing of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claims in terms of<br />
inviolable <strong>and</strong> non-negotiable principles that supersede <strong>and</strong> surpass <strong>the</strong><br />
importance of alternative “policy” considerations. This assumption that<br />
rights-based claims immediately <strong>and</strong> unquestionably vault ahead of<br />
alternative values (often interpreted by rights claimants as little more than<br />
utilitarian, politically expedient or institutionally self-interested<br />
considerations) has significant implications on how government power is<br />
conceptualized. Those subscribing to this or some similar reading of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s impact on government, no longer consider it valid for governments<br />
to exercise discretion when determining <strong>the</strong> issues, interests, values that<br />
should shape policy, at <strong>the</strong> expense of protected rights. While conflicts<br />
between competing rights are inevitable <strong>and</strong> require resolution, many believe<br />
that entrenchment itself resolves disputes about <strong>the</strong> relative importance of<br />
competing values clearly in favour of those explicitly provided for in <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
One implication of this assumption on policy development is that legislative<br />
objectives not easily accommodated within <strong>the</strong> language of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> are<br />
deemed by many to lack sufficient importance to warrant limiting a protected<br />
right. This is because <strong>the</strong>se objectives relate merely to policy objectives, not<br />
matters of rights <strong>and</strong>, <strong>the</strong>refore, are not entitled to restrict a protected right. By<br />
assuming that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is exhaustive of <strong>the</strong> most fundamental values in<br />
society <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> requirements of a free <strong>and</strong> democratic society consist<br />
primarily, if not exclusively, of <strong>the</strong> enumerated rights <strong>the</strong>mselves, this view<br />
offers little recognition that <strong>the</strong> values essential to a free <strong>and</strong> democratic<br />
society are contested.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r, assumptions concerning <strong>the</strong> primacy of protected rights discourage an<br />
approach to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> which recognizes collective or general welfare values.<br />
<strong>The</strong> assumption in a “rights must be paramount” approach that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is,<br />
<strong>and</strong> should be considered, exhaustive of all fundamental values places an<br />
ideological <strong>and</strong> institutional constraint on <strong>the</strong> values that can be promoted. It<br />
excludes those values which fall outside <strong>the</strong> specific, <strong>and</strong> highly<br />
individualistic, language of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. While <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> gives limited<br />
recognition to collective rights, such as minority education rights, <strong>the</strong> extent to<br />
120
<strong>The</strong> Limitations of a “Rights Must be Paramount”<br />
Perspective<br />
which <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court recognizes collective values as a protected activity<br />
depends largely on judicial assumptions about <strong>the</strong> philosophical content of<br />
<strong>the</strong>se values. A telling example of this was in <strong>the</strong> labour trilogy cases where a<br />
majority of <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court declined to recognize <strong>the</strong> collective right to<br />
strike as a protected form of freedom of association because striking did not<br />
have any individual analogy. 7<br />
<strong>The</strong> predominantly individual rights contained in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> do not address<br />
<strong>the</strong> ideological <strong>and</strong> cultural aspirations of a polity whose political culture<br />
reflects collective values generated by tory <strong>and</strong> socialist influences<br />
(Horowitz). Evidence of our hybrid political culture is suggested in strong<br />
public support for a range of collective or general welfare concerns, even when<br />
<strong>the</strong>y conflict with <strong>the</strong> individualistic assumptions of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. One such<br />
example is <strong>the</strong> attempt to promote <strong>the</strong> collective security of women through a<br />
rape shield policy (to prevent a woman’s sexual past from being raised in<br />
court) despite possible implications on individual legal rights. 8 A challenge to<br />
<strong>the</strong> primacy of individual rights also arises in public support for regulating<br />
election expenses (<strong>and</strong> hence restricting free speech) for <strong>the</strong> general welfare<br />
objective of promoting a fair <strong>and</strong> equitable election process. 9 Although <strong>the</strong>se<br />
are but two examples of collective values, <strong>the</strong>y raise important questions<br />
concerning whe<strong>the</strong>r elements of our political culture which diverge from a<br />
strictly individualistic perspective will be unduly inhibited by an approach that<br />
assumes that protected rights must invariably be paramount to all o<strong>the</strong>r values.<br />
<strong>The</strong> question of how much discretion governments should retain to impose<br />
limits on protected rights invites controversy precisely because questions of<br />
limits on rights strike at <strong>the</strong> heart of debates about <strong>the</strong> relationship between<br />
individuals <strong>and</strong> community: specifically, should <strong>the</strong> state promote a particular<br />
substantive view of <strong>the</strong> “good life” if so doing conflicts with individual rights?<br />
That <strong>the</strong>re are fundamentally contested views around this issue in Canada was<br />
particularly apparent in <strong>the</strong> controversy surrounding <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> legislative<br />
override by <strong>the</strong> Quebec government in 1988 to protect its cultural policy of<br />
promoting <strong>the</strong> French language from rights-based challenges under <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Basing his reasons on <strong>the</strong> need to protect collective rights, Premier<br />
Robert Bourassa’s assumptions about <strong>the</strong> requirements of preserving <strong>and</strong><br />
promoting <strong>the</strong> French culture clearly contradict <strong>the</strong> belief of many that <strong>the</strong><br />
protected rights in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, which are primarily individual based, should<br />
have primacy over all o<strong>the</strong>r policy objectives:<br />
When two fundamental values clash, someone has to make a choice,<br />
<strong>and</strong> find a balance between both. An unavoidable arbitration has to<br />
take place. Anywhere else in North America, <strong>the</strong> arbitration would<br />
have been made in favour of individual rights. . .<br />
At <strong>the</strong> end, when a choice had to be made between individual rights<br />
<strong>and</strong> collective rights, I arbitrated in favour of collective rights, by<br />
agreeing to invoke <strong>the</strong> notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing clause.<br />
...Iam<strong>the</strong>only head of government in North America who had <strong>the</strong><br />
moral right to follow this course, because I am, in North America, <strong>the</strong><br />
only political leader of a community which is a small minority (Globe<br />
<strong>and</strong> Mail, 1988).<br />
121
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Aside from reduced confidence in <strong>the</strong> legitimacy of governments exercising<br />
discretionary judgments about <strong>the</strong> priority of values, a “rights must be<br />
paramount” interpretation of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> potentially constrains debate. In<br />
rejecting <strong>the</strong> legitimacy of o<strong>the</strong>r values because <strong>the</strong>y lack <strong>the</strong> same status as<br />
rights, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore do not warrant constitutional protection, <strong>the</strong> language or<br />
terms of <strong>the</strong> debate are altered to an extent that compromises are more difficult<br />
to achieve. 10 How can society, after all, compromise fundamental<br />
constitutional principles?<br />
Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>the</strong> powerful rhetoric of appealing to principles, if <strong>the</strong><br />
circumstances protected by <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cannot be readily inferred from <strong>the</strong> text<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> values essential to a democracy are contested, it seems misdirected to<br />
assume that only those claims which can be neatly collapsed into rights-based<br />
terms are worthy of protection. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, if <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is nei<strong>the</strong>r determinate<br />
nor exhaustive of fundamental values, it is equally questionable to assume that<br />
governments <strong>the</strong>mselves should not play some role in advancing, under s. 1,<br />
values that represent reasonable <strong>and</strong> justifiable limits on protected rights. <strong>The</strong><br />
principal objection to a “rights must be paramount” position, <strong>the</strong>refore, is its<br />
assumption that governments no longer have <strong>the</strong> legitimacy to pursue <strong>and</strong><br />
promote values that conflict with protected rights. This criticism nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
presumes a particular ideological or value preference nor is motivated by<br />
disdain for <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. It must be stressed that this paper is not arguing that<br />
governments do not have an obligation to respect protected rights or that courts<br />
should defer to whatever choices governments make. Courts should be<br />
anything but deferential to legislative policies where <strong>the</strong>se do not reflect<br />
sincere attempts to debate <strong>the</strong> relative merits of competing values, or design<br />
legislation in a way which imposes as minimal an infringement on <strong>the</strong><br />
protected right as is reasonably possible. But this argument is for ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
paper. <strong>The</strong> argument here is that a “rights must be paramount” position<br />
implicitly rejects <strong>the</strong> legitimacy of governments or societies questioning <strong>and</strong><br />
challenging <strong>the</strong> parameters of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> protection. By doing so, it becomes<br />
difficult to engage in necessary <strong>and</strong> meaningful political debate about <strong>the</strong><br />
priorities that should be attached to competing values.<br />
Even if <strong>the</strong> indeterminacy <strong>and</strong> incompleteness of <strong>the</strong> values promoted by <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> are accepted, many will continue to place greater trust in judicial ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than political resolutions to rights-based conflicts. This greater faith in <strong>the</strong><br />
courts is often associated with <strong>the</strong> institutional differences between courts <strong>and</strong><br />
legislatures; courts, for example, are thought to be insulated <strong>and</strong> detached from<br />
popular passions that may be hostile to minority interests. This paper does not<br />
intend to debate which institution is best equipped to protect Canadians’ rights<br />
<strong>and</strong> values. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, it seeks <strong>the</strong> more modest task of questioning <strong>the</strong><br />
assumption that it is illegitimate to look beyond <strong>the</strong> specific provisions of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> or court interpretations of <strong>the</strong>m, when seeking answers to rights-based<br />
conflicts.<br />
Rights-based Criticisms of Distinct Society in Meech<br />
Opposition to <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord arose for a<br />
number of reasons. Although this paper focuses on <strong>the</strong> implications of <strong>the</strong><br />
clause on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, it is difficult to disentangle <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>-based objections<br />
from broader concerns. <strong>The</strong> clause was not only debated in terms of how it<br />
would affect protected rights, but also in terms of which vision of Canada it<br />
represented. Critics argued that <strong>the</strong> clause was an invitation to re-emphasize a<br />
territorially-focused polity <strong>and</strong> a rejection of <strong>the</strong> pan-Canadian rights-based<br />
122
<strong>The</strong> Limitations of a “Rights Must be Paramount”<br />
Perspective<br />
approach embodied in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Where <strong>the</strong> two fronts of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
debate intersected was on critics’ conception of <strong>the</strong> purpose of entrenched<br />
rights. One of <strong>the</strong> purposes of entrenchment was to be an instrument of nation<br />
building. By applying to all Canadians by virtue of citizenship ra<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
geographical residence, centralists hoped that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would streng<strong>the</strong>n<br />
national identity at <strong>the</strong> expense of regional affiliation. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, by altering <strong>the</strong><br />
political system <strong>and</strong> modifying <strong>the</strong> concept of “legislative supremacy” <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would undermine province-building. While <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> proponents, for<br />
pragmatic reasons, were quick to suggest that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> does not actually<br />
transfer power from one level of government to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, many analysts<br />
expected that <strong>the</strong> impact of judicial review would be felt more pronouncedly<br />
by <strong>the</strong> provinces (Knopff <strong>and</strong> Morton, 1985; Russell, 1983).<br />
<strong>The</strong> relationship between <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> protected rights in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> went to <strong>the</strong> heart of <strong>the</strong> debate over what vision of Canada should<br />
be promoted. Not only did <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause prescribe a shift away<br />
from <strong>the</strong> pan-Canadian model but, in <strong>the</strong> opinion of many, it also represented a<br />
rejection of our newly enacted “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> regime.” By failing to provide<br />
explicitly for <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s exemption from <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause, many<br />
feared that <strong>the</strong> clause would remodify <strong>the</strong> political system to <strong>the</strong> extent that<br />
some decisions about limiting rights in Quebec would effectively remain in <strong>the</strong><br />
h<strong>and</strong>s of governments. This view presumed that courts would have given a<br />
generous interpretation of <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause, granting Quebec<br />
governments significant latitude to limit protected rights for <strong>the</strong> purpose of<br />
promoting cultural values. 11<br />
Some of <strong>the</strong> most significant rights-based objections to <strong>the</strong> distinct society<br />
clause came from women’s groups, primarily outside Quebec. In <strong>the</strong> 1987<br />
hearings on <strong>the</strong> proposed constitutional amendments, five national women’s<br />
organizations argued before <strong>the</strong> Parliamentary Committee that <strong>the</strong> Accord<br />
would jeopardize equality rights. 12 <strong>La</strong>nguage minority groups, especially<br />
English-speaking groups in Quebec, were also concerned that <strong>the</strong> distinct<br />
society clause would weaken protection for language rights in <strong>the</strong> province.<br />
Although it is difficult to generalize <strong>the</strong> nature of objections to <strong>the</strong> clause, a<br />
number of concerns were shared by more than one group. Women’s groups<br />
argued that <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause could undermine women’s equality<br />
rights in essentially four ways. First, <strong>the</strong> clause could encourage courts to<br />
adopt a more restrictive interpretation of equality rights in light of possible<br />
conflicts with <strong>the</strong> objectives of a distinct society clause. Second, <strong>the</strong> clause<br />
could create a constitutionally stated justification for limiting rights. <strong>The</strong><br />
assumption was that <strong>the</strong> consideration of reasonable limits in s. 1 would<br />
become more expansive, to include cultural objectives associated with <strong>the</strong><br />
distinct society clause <strong>and</strong>, as a result, provide additional grounds <strong>and</strong> greater<br />
ease for a Quebec government to promote cultural values that require limiting<br />
equality rights. Third, <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause might insulate legislation<br />
from <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> review. This would occur if courts were to define distinct society<br />
as constituting a fundamental principle of Confederation <strong>and</strong>, <strong>the</strong>refore, of<br />
parallel constitutional importance <strong>and</strong> not subject to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. And fourth,<br />
<strong>the</strong> distinct society clause could place a lower priority on equality rights than<br />
on <strong>the</strong> collective rights of Québécois. This is because <strong>the</strong> proposed clause s. 16,<br />
which stated that multicultural <strong>and</strong> aboriginal rights in ss. 25, 27 <strong>and</strong> 35 would<br />
not have been affected by distinct society, did not explicitly exclude equality<br />
rights in ss. 15 <strong>and</strong> 28. It was argued, <strong>the</strong>refore, that equality rights could be<br />
subordinated to or affected by <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause because <strong>the</strong>y, unlike<br />
123
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
some rights, were not explicitly exempted from its ambit (Smith, 1988; Brock,<br />
1990).<br />
It would be misleading to characterize all women’s groups’ opposition to <strong>the</strong><br />
distinct society clause as embodying a “rights must be paramount”<br />
perspective. A significant factor in women’s opposition to <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
Accord was <strong>the</strong>ir frustration at not being able to engage in open <strong>and</strong> honest<br />
debate about <strong>the</strong> potential implications of a distinct society clause for equality<br />
rights (Baines, 1988). Fur<strong>the</strong>r, while many considered it illegitimate to treat<br />
collective or cultural values as being paramount to equality or o<strong>the</strong>r protected<br />
rights, o<strong>the</strong>rs called for debate on <strong>the</strong> priorities that should be attached to each<br />
(Smith, 1988). Also, for those frustrated with <strong>the</strong> traditional legislative<br />
processes, a “rights must be paramount” perspective offers an important<br />
symbolic <strong>and</strong> political position from which to challenge systemic inequalities.<br />
This is particularly true in light of <strong>the</strong> concern that equality rights, being<br />
excluded from <strong>the</strong> list of provisions exempted from <strong>the</strong> scope of <strong>the</strong> distinct<br />
society clause, might be interpreted as of lesser importance.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se caveats notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing, many of <strong>the</strong> women’s groups’ objections to<br />
<strong>the</strong> distinct society clause shared similarities with <strong>the</strong> assumptions of a “rights<br />
must be paramount” perspective: namely, that <strong>the</strong> clause could allow for<br />
collective <strong>and</strong> non-enumerated rights to be given primacy over individual<br />
rights; that governments would continue to play a discretionary role in<br />
promoting values that conflict with protected rights; <strong>and</strong> that protection for<br />
equality rights may not be universal but ra<strong>the</strong>r might vary in <strong>and</strong> out of Quebec.<br />
While <strong>the</strong>se assumptions are legitimate depending on one’s vision of society<br />
<strong>and</strong> of governmental responsibilities, <strong>the</strong>y are limiting in <strong>the</strong>ir capacity to<br />
allow debate where disagreement exists on <strong>the</strong> priority of contested values. For<br />
example, <strong>the</strong> perception that protected rights must be insulated from<br />
government attempts to promote collective values made it difficult for non-<br />
Francophone women’s groups to reconcile <strong>the</strong>mselves to <strong>the</strong> likelihood that<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would be interpreted in <strong>the</strong> context of <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r, suspicions of any differentiation in <strong>the</strong> limits imposed on equality<br />
rights for collective purposes made it difficult to be assured by Francophone<br />
women’s claims that part of what it means for Quebec to be a distinct society is<br />
<strong>the</strong> progress made in <strong>the</strong> last couple of decades in terms of equality concerns<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> status of women (Bonenfant, 1987).<br />
Political Proponents’ Response<br />
Federal <strong>and</strong> provincial supporters of <strong>the</strong> Accord seemed impervious to<br />
women’s concerns. Early criticisms of <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause were greeted<br />
with disparaging comments implying that anyone opposing <strong>the</strong> amendment<br />
was somehow “anti-Quebec.” 13 Not only did political proponents dismiss <strong>the</strong><br />
need to reassess <strong>the</strong> clause, 14 <strong>the</strong>re was little recognition that protected rights<br />
would even be affected. Instead of acknowledging <strong>the</strong> possibility that<br />
interpretations of <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause could influence what activities are<br />
considered a justifiable limit on equality or o<strong>the</strong>r protected rights, political<br />
supporters of Meech <strong>La</strong>ke insisted that <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause would not<br />
“override” protected rights. 15<br />
<strong>The</strong> combined effect of a “rights must be paramount” critique of <strong>the</strong> distinct<br />
society clause <strong>and</strong> political proponents’ refusal to sincerely address rightsbased<br />
concerns was an absence of meaningful debate on <strong>the</strong> following<br />
important questions: would distinct society likely affect <strong>the</strong> interpretation of<br />
124
<strong>The</strong> Limitations of a “Rights Must be Paramount”<br />
Perspective<br />
equality or o<strong>the</strong>r rights (ei<strong>the</strong>r by influencing <strong>the</strong>ir definition or, more likely,<br />
by broadening <strong>the</strong> scope of permissible limits on <strong>the</strong>m); given Quebec’s sense<br />
of community <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> importance of collective rights, are territorial-based<br />
differences in how limits on rights are interpreted acceptable; <strong>and</strong> would <strong>the</strong><br />
kind of collective values envisaged in a distinct society be consistent with a<br />
free <strong>and</strong> democratic society?<br />
Distinct Society Clause in <strong>the</strong> 1991 Federal Proposal<br />
In sharp contrast to <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke round, one interesting aspect of <strong>the</strong> 1991-<br />
1992 constitutional debate was <strong>the</strong> relative lack of contention surrounding <strong>the</strong><br />
distinct society clause. Although <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>-based criticisms of <strong>the</strong> clause were<br />
raised, <strong>the</strong> level cannot be compared with <strong>the</strong> experience of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
round.<br />
<strong>The</strong> 1991 distinct society clause would have been explicitly placed within <strong>the</strong><br />
text of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, requiring that courts interpret <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in a manner<br />
consistent with “<strong>the</strong> preservation <strong>and</strong> promotion of Quebec as a distinct society<br />
within Canada” <strong>and</strong> “<strong>the</strong> preservation of <strong>the</strong> existence of French-speaking<br />
Canadians primarily located in Quebec but also throughout Canada, <strong>and</strong><br />
English-speaking Canadians, primarily located outside Quebec but also<br />
present in Quebec.” In contrast to its vague definition in Meech, <strong>the</strong> new<br />
distinct society clause was defined to include a French-speaking majority, a<br />
unique culture <strong>and</strong> a civil law tradition (“Shaping Canada’s Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r:<br />
Proposals,” 51).<br />
Placing <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause within <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> left little doubt that<br />
interpretations of protected rights would be affected. <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> already<br />
recognizes <strong>the</strong> existence of collective values in <strong>the</strong> aboriginal rights <strong>and</strong><br />
multicultural heritage clauses of ss. 25 <strong>and</strong> 27. Like <strong>the</strong>se clauses, distinct<br />
society would have been an interpretive clause, providing guidelines for<br />
interpretation. Ra<strong>the</strong>r than conferring a substantive entitlement on its own, it<br />
would more likely have affected <strong>the</strong> way protected rights were interpreted <strong>and</strong>,<br />
more significantly, potentially widened <strong>the</strong> scope of permissible limitations on<br />
protected rights under s. 1. As an interpretive clause, distinct society does not<br />
appear to have been paramount to any single <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> provision. Of particular<br />
concern for women, <strong>the</strong> clause seems to have been subordinate to s. 28 which is<br />
a gender “notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing” clause; s. 28 provides for equality between men<br />
<strong>and</strong> women “notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing anything in this <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>” <strong>and</strong>, presumably,<br />
notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause. In contrast to <strong>the</strong> Meech clause,<br />
which exempted from its ambit certain rights but not equality rights, <strong>the</strong><br />
proposed federal clause did not lead to <strong>the</strong> same concern that a hierarchy of<br />
rights would be created.<br />
<strong>The</strong> new clause addressed some of <strong>the</strong> concerns raised in <strong>the</strong> Meech round, but<br />
not all of <strong>the</strong>m. For individuals <strong>and</strong> groups concerned about <strong>the</strong> rights-based<br />
implications of <strong>the</strong> Meech version, <strong>the</strong> 1991 version was still vulnerable in at<br />
least two respects: <strong>the</strong> clause could have affected how courts interpret <strong>the</strong><br />
scope of a protected right — what circumstances are actually protected — <strong>and</strong><br />
would likely have entered into judicial decisions about whe<strong>the</strong>r limits on<br />
protected rights are reasonable <strong>and</strong> demonstrably justified.<br />
This second role is <strong>the</strong> most significant. Judicial review of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has<br />
tended to proceed in two analytically distinct stages in which decisions about<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r a right has been infringed are often distinct from <strong>the</strong> determination of<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r a limit is justified. Because <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause would provide<br />
125
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
an interpretive aid when determining reasonable limits, courts could exp<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> scope of permissible limits on equality or o<strong>the</strong>r protected rights for distinct<br />
society purposes. This could include ei<strong>the</strong>r enlarging or altering <strong>the</strong> definition<br />
of what objectives are considered reasonable or worthy of limiting protected<br />
rights to include those necessary for <strong>the</strong> promotion of a distinct society. Or it<br />
could affect <strong>the</strong> way courts assess whe<strong>the</strong>r distinct society objectives meet <strong>the</strong><br />
proportionality guidelines in <strong>the</strong> Oakes test (R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103).<br />
Many have argued that judicially created guidelines for determining s. 1 issues<br />
are generally indeterminate of specific outcomes (Peck 1987; Hiebert 1991).<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore, judicial discretion in determining whe<strong>the</strong>r a legislative or executive<br />
objective has been designed or administered in a manner that itself is<br />
reasonable, could be affected by judicial commitment to <strong>the</strong> objective itself.<br />
<strong>The</strong> potential of <strong>the</strong> 1991 distinct society clause to influence judicial opinion<br />
on <strong>the</strong> worthiness of related objectives may have been significant for those<br />
concerned with <strong>the</strong> primacy of equality rights. It could be argued that <strong>the</strong><br />
Supreme Court has already indicated some sympathy for <strong>the</strong> promotion of a<br />
distinct society. In <strong>the</strong> Ford case (Quebec signs law), <strong>the</strong> Court went a<br />
considerable distance in reading a distinct society interpretation into <strong>the</strong><br />
limitation clause of s.1. In that case, <strong>the</strong> Court agreed with <strong>the</strong> Quebec<br />
government’s claim that protecting <strong>the</strong> French language is crucial to <strong>the</strong><br />
survival of French culture to assure <strong>the</strong> “reality of Quebec society is<br />
communicated through <strong>the</strong> visage linguistique” <strong>and</strong> that this was a justifiable<br />
objective in a free <strong>and</strong> democratic society. Its difficulty <strong>and</strong> reasons for finding<br />
<strong>the</strong> signs law invalid were not based on <strong>the</strong> objective itself but on <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
some attempt had not been made to accommodate <strong>the</strong> use of o<strong>the</strong>r languages<br />
(Ford v. Quebec [Attorney General], [1988] 2 S.C.R. at 778-779).<br />
Despite <strong>the</strong> potential implications of <strong>the</strong> 1991 distinct society clause in<br />
undermining <strong>the</strong> primacy of protected rights, little concern was expressed<br />
about its rights-based implications. Most of <strong>the</strong> commentary <strong>and</strong> criticisms of<br />
<strong>the</strong> 1991 federal proposal focused on issues o<strong>the</strong>r than distinct society. And<br />
when distinct society was considered, particularly during <strong>the</strong> constitutional<br />
conferences, <strong>the</strong> issue was not its impact on rights but whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> concept of a<br />
distinct society should also be applied to aboriginal peoples (Renewal of<br />
Canada Conferences: Compendium of Reports, 1992).<br />
As significant as <strong>the</strong> magnitude of criticisms during <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke process<br />
was <strong>the</strong> relative absence of a sustained critique of <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause in<br />
<strong>the</strong> 1991-92 discussions. Many of <strong>the</strong> women’s groups who went on record for<br />
criticizing aspects of <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause in Meech were noticeably<br />
silent in <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 round of constitutional hearings. Only <strong>the</strong> National<br />
Action Committee on <strong>the</strong> Status of Women took a public st<strong>and</strong> on <strong>the</strong> issue.<br />
And NAC, which endorsed <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause in <strong>the</strong> hearings, focused<br />
little attention on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> implications of <strong>the</strong> clause (NAC, 1991).<br />
Unlike NAC’s response to <strong>the</strong> Meech version of distinct society, <strong>the</strong>re was no<br />
explicit criticism of <strong>the</strong> clause in terms of its potential effect on equality rights.<br />
In NAC’s view, some of <strong>the</strong> concerns of women’s organizations in <strong>the</strong> Meech<br />
<strong>La</strong>ke round had been addressed by placing <strong>the</strong> provision explicitly in <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong> result of this, NAC implied, was that <strong>the</strong> sexual equality clause of<br />
s. 28 would be paramount to o<strong>the</strong>r <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> provisions or interpretive clauses<br />
(Ibid.) Fur<strong>the</strong>r, NAC President Judy Rebick indicated that it may be<br />
inappropriate to require universal treatment of equality concerns; that just as<br />
126
<strong>The</strong> Limitations of a “Rights Must be Paramount”<br />
Perspective<br />
sameness of treatment may not be desirable in a sexual context, it may also be<br />
undesirable in <strong>the</strong> context of cultural or aboriginal concerns:<br />
. . . (W)e underst<strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> women’s movement ...that equality<br />
doesn’t mean treating everyone <strong>the</strong> same way. Equality often means<br />
special measures — that terrible word — to correct historical<br />
inequalities. . . [W]e also need special powers...forQuebec...to<br />
recognize <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>y have a disadvantage in being <strong>the</strong> only<br />
French-speaking nation or province in <strong>the</strong> whole of North America.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y need those powers <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y want those powers to protect <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
language, <strong>the</strong>ir culture <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> institutions. (Rebick, 29 Oct. 1991,<br />
10:18-19).<br />
Some might object to this characterization of Quebec’s concern for special<br />
status as a measure to overcome historical disadvantages. <strong>The</strong>y may, instead,<br />
interpret Quebec’s claims for different treatment as reflecting collective<br />
values <strong>and</strong> state obligations that are <strong>the</strong> result of a political culture different<br />
from <strong>the</strong> rest of Canada. Never<strong>the</strong>less it is significant that NAC moved away<br />
from a pan-Canadian approach to protected rights. It has also indicated a<br />
significant movement away from <strong>the</strong> principle that “rights must be<br />
paramount” under all circumstances.<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r significant change in support for <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause came from<br />
one of <strong>the</strong> most ardent critics of <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
round, <strong>and</strong> subscriber to a “rights must be paramount” position,<br />
Newfoundl<strong>and</strong> Premier Clyde Wells. Having earlier argued that <strong>the</strong> distinct<br />
society clause should serve little purpose o<strong>the</strong>r than an historical <strong>and</strong><br />
sociological recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, Wells grudgingly<br />
accepted <strong>the</strong> principle that distinct society allows for possible variations in<br />
how protected rights are interpreted. Wells made it clear that this was not his<br />
preference but implied it was a reasonable concession to accommodate <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional concerns of <strong>the</strong> Quebec Francophone majority. 16<br />
While philosophically I personally...would prefer to see <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
apply to every part of <strong>the</strong> country <strong>and</strong> to each individual in exactly <strong>the</strong><br />
same manner, if <strong>the</strong> majority of citizens of Quebec want <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
individual charter rights to be somewhat subordinated to <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
collective rights, <strong>the</strong>n it is difficult for <strong>the</strong> citizens of any o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
province to say we don’t want to see that happen in Quebec...Some<br />
limited subordination of individual rights to collective rights within<br />
Quebec, if that is what <strong>the</strong> people of Quebec want, may not be an<br />
unreasonable concession to accommodate <strong>the</strong> legitimate concerns of<br />
a province that is, by reason of its culture, language <strong>and</strong> legal system,<br />
distinctly different from any o<strong>the</strong>r province in <strong>the</strong> country. (Wells, 22<br />
October 1991, 8).<br />
<strong>The</strong> comparatively minor role of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>-based criticisms of <strong>the</strong> distinct<br />
society clause does not mean all groups changed <strong>the</strong>ir opinions on <strong>the</strong><br />
legitimacy of <strong>the</strong> clause. A h<strong>and</strong>ful of smaller women’s <strong>and</strong> minority language<br />
groups continued to criticize <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause precisely because of its<br />
potential to undermine a “rights must be paramount” position. For example,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Br<strong>and</strong>on Women’s Study Group opposed <strong>the</strong> idea that women’s equality<br />
rights could be “subject to <strong>the</strong> collective interests of Quebec’s distinct<br />
society.”<br />
127
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
<strong>The</strong> issue here is not whe<strong>the</strong>r Quebec society is distinct or whe<strong>the</strong>r it<br />
should have <strong>the</strong> capacity to preserve <strong>and</strong> promote its culture; it is<br />
about whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> preservation <strong>and</strong> promotion of a collectivity<br />
should be done at <strong>the</strong> expense of individual, disadvantaged, or<br />
minority group rights. It will not help <strong>the</strong> women of Canada to have a<br />
clearly articulated statement that <strong>the</strong> interests of women must be<br />
subordinate to those of <strong>the</strong>ir national or linguistic group.<br />
...werespect <strong>the</strong> right of Quebec to claim a distinct society, but<br />
request that it does so in a way that would not override <strong>the</strong><br />
fundamental equality rights of women ...Equality rights must be<br />
maintained above any cultural, linguistic or ethnic encroachments.<br />
(Everitt, 6 Nov. 1991, 18:7-8).<br />
Similarly, ano<strong>the</strong>r women’s group, Equality Eve, raised concerns that locating<br />
<strong>the</strong> distinct society clause in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> could “trump” protected rights. For<br />
example, it argued that had <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause been entrenched at <strong>the</strong><br />
time of <strong>the</strong> signs law decision, <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court “would probably find that<br />
freedom of expression would not be violated” (Equality Eve, 1991).<br />
Concerns of how <strong>the</strong> 1991 version of <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause would affect<br />
interpretations of protected rights were not confined to women’s groups.<br />
Anglophones in Quebec expressed concern, as <strong>the</strong>y did during Meech, that <strong>the</strong><br />
clause could undermine individual rights. This objection was similar to that of<br />
women’s groups — that <strong>the</strong> clause would ei<strong>the</strong>r narrow <strong>the</strong> interpretation<br />
given to protected rights or broaden <strong>the</strong> scope of permissible limits<br />
(Henderson, 1991).<br />
Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>the</strong>se objections, <strong>the</strong>re was an order of magnitude change in<br />
<strong>the</strong> criticism extended towards <strong>the</strong> clause in <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 constitutional debate,<br />
despite <strong>the</strong> potential for rights-based objections. Those who opposed <strong>the</strong><br />
distinct society clause in Meech, because of its potential to narrow <strong>the</strong><br />
interpretation of protected rights <strong>and</strong>, more significantly, broaden <strong>the</strong> scope of<br />
permissible limits on rights, should have had similar concerns with <strong>the</strong> 1991<br />
version. So why were <strong>the</strong>se criticisms not more vocal?<br />
An important part of <strong>the</strong> explanation for <strong>the</strong> relatively minor role <strong>the</strong> distinct<br />
society clause played in <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 constitutional process is no doubt<br />
accounted for by <strong>the</strong> political fallout over <strong>the</strong> death of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord.<br />
Given that <strong>the</strong> clause generated significant differences between Quebec <strong>and</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r women’s groups, it is not surprising that equality concerns were pursued<br />
in different forms, for instance, increasing political representation of women<br />
via a reformed Senate with a gender ra<strong>the</strong>r than territorial composition, <strong>the</strong><br />
implications of entrenching property rights, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> effects of decentralization<br />
on family law, among o<strong>the</strong>rs (Schneiderman, 1992).<br />
While significant, this is only part of <strong>the</strong> explanation for why rights-based<br />
criticisms of <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause did not play a more prominent role in<br />
<strong>the</strong> 1991 <strong>and</strong> early 1992 constitutional debate. This paper partly attributes <strong>the</strong><br />
relative lack of criticism to an implicit reassessment of <strong>the</strong> utility of a “rights<br />
must be paramount” approach. Considerations in 1991-92 about whe<strong>the</strong>r or<br />
not to accept an entrenched distinct society clause approximate <strong>the</strong> kind of<br />
dilemma discussed earlier, in which protected rights clash with important,<br />
although contested, non-enumerated values. Given <strong>the</strong> gulf that existed<br />
between Francophones <strong>and</strong> Anglophones on <strong>the</strong> desirability of <strong>the</strong> clause, it<br />
128
<strong>The</strong> Limitations of a “Rights Must be Paramount”<br />
Perspective<br />
has become increasingly apparent that <strong>the</strong> resolution of our constitutional<br />
impasse may depend less on vindicating rights-based claims than on making<br />
difficult choices about <strong>the</strong> priorities that should be attached to competing<br />
values. In this context, <strong>the</strong> choice may be seen as having been between 1) a<br />
universal approach to rights, which would likely be rejected by Quebec <strong>and</strong> 2)<br />
possible variations on how limitations on rights are interpreted to better reflect<br />
<strong>and</strong> accommodate <strong>the</strong> different political culture of Quebec. That <strong>the</strong>re has been<br />
greater accommodation of <strong>the</strong> latter choice seems clear in NAC’s willingness<br />
to extend concern about “sameness of treatment” from <strong>the</strong> sexual equality<br />
realm to recognize Quebec’s different sense of community. In a less generous<br />
manner, Wells similarly recognized that for <strong>the</strong> sake of unity we may have to<br />
accommodate Quebec’s different underst<strong>and</strong>ing of <strong>the</strong> balance between<br />
collective <strong>and</strong> individual rights <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> role of governments in promoting this<br />
balance.<br />
<strong>The</strong> relative lack of contention surrounding <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause in <strong>the</strong><br />
1991-92 constitutional debate indicates a greater sensitivity among<br />
constitutional participants <strong>and</strong> commentators to <strong>the</strong> difficulties of<br />
accommodating Quebec’s sense of nation in a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>-based constitutional<br />
order. Whe<strong>the</strong>r out of consignment to <strong>the</strong> view that <strong>the</strong> price of remaining a<br />
unified country may involve tolerating some variation in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s<br />
interpretation or recognizing that <strong>the</strong> range of Quebec’s cultural objectives is<br />
consistent with a free <strong>and</strong> democratic society, <strong>the</strong> implication is that <strong>the</strong><br />
vindication of rights-based concerns may not resolve all of our constitutional<br />
difficulties.<br />
Having argued this, however, it is premature to conclude that a “rights must be<br />
paramount” perspective no longer influences <strong>the</strong> way many assess<br />
constitutional proposals. This was made abundantly clear during debate on <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord in <strong>the</strong> fall of 1992. Unlike <strong>the</strong> 1991 federal proposal, <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord did not contain a separate distinct society clause but<br />
included it within a broader Canada clause. <strong>The</strong> Canada clause, which was an<br />
interpretive clause, defined a number of fundamental characteristics of<br />
Canada, including Canada’s parliamentary <strong>and</strong> federal system of government<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> principles of aboriginal self-government <strong>and</strong> Quebec as a distinct<br />
society. While <strong>the</strong> majority of criticisms focused on aspects of <strong>the</strong> clause o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than distinct society, 17 <strong>the</strong>y emphasized similar objections to those raised<br />
about <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause during <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke debate: that <strong>the</strong><br />
Canada clause would increase <strong>the</strong> discretion given to governments to limit<br />
protected rights. <strong>The</strong> most blunt characterization of this was that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
would be “trumped” by <strong>the</strong> Canada clause (Baines, 24, 1992).<br />
Rights-based criticisms of <strong>the</strong> Canada clause speculated on <strong>the</strong> implications of<br />
Canada’s fundamental characteristics being defined in terms of certain<br />
institutional features, such as federalism, parliamentary government <strong>and</strong><br />
aboriginal self-government, while failing to specify <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
complaint was that this could undermine <strong>the</strong> relative significance of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in <strong>the</strong> judicial review of conflicts between governmental <strong>and</strong> rightsbased<br />
claims. It was also argued that <strong>the</strong> rights protected under <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
might suffer because <strong>the</strong> clause provided that <strong>the</strong> entire <strong>Constitution</strong>, including<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, “shall be interpreted in a manner consistent” with <strong>the</strong>se<br />
fundamental characteristics. <strong>The</strong> concern raised was that <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> word<br />
“including” might encourage <strong>the</strong> courts to assume that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is<br />
subordinate, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore inferior, to <strong>the</strong> Canada clause:<br />
129
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
[<strong>The</strong> draft text uses] “including” which is not an ambiguous word. To<br />
<strong>the</strong> contrary, it means to treat as subsumed, as subordinated. At <strong>the</strong><br />
present time, <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> values are not subordinated to any o<strong>the</strong>r values.<br />
However, if <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown agreement is adopted, <strong>the</strong>y will be<br />
subordinated to <strong>the</strong> contents of <strong>the</strong> Canada Clause.<br />
More specifically, <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> values will be measured against <strong>the</strong> first<br />
three fundamental characteristics that are itemized in <strong>the</strong> Canada<br />
Clause. <strong>The</strong>se three are flat-out assertions of governmental <strong>and</strong><br />
federalism characteristics...Both <strong>the</strong>ir wording <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir positioning<br />
will be interpreted as indicative of <strong>the</strong> strength of <strong>the</strong> call for<br />
deference to governmental actors. (Ibid., 25).<br />
<strong>The</strong> preceding criticism of <strong>the</strong> Canada clause faulted <strong>the</strong> proposal for its failure<br />
to secure protected rights against governmental encroachments. Critics<br />
rejected <strong>the</strong> Canada clause on <strong>the</strong> basis of assumptions that governmental<br />
power <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> are inherently conflictual <strong>and</strong> that governments ought<br />
not to be permitted to promote non-enumerated values that conflict with<br />
protected rights. This “rights must be paramount” critique of <strong>the</strong> clause had a<br />
constraining effect on debate. It allowed opponents to reject <strong>the</strong> Accord on <strong>the</strong><br />
basis of “principle,” in that <strong>the</strong> Canada clause did not adequately insulate<br />
protected rights from government action, without addressing <strong>the</strong> following<br />
questions which would have contributed to a healthier <strong>and</strong> more vibrant<br />
debate: are <strong>the</strong>re fundamental values, in addition to those in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, that<br />
governments might promote in light of this clause; where conflicts with<br />
protected rights arise, is <strong>the</strong> wording of <strong>the</strong> clause sufficient to ensure that<br />
rights are appropriately considered; <strong>and</strong> will <strong>the</strong> clause encourage a<br />
meaningful assessment of <strong>the</strong> justification of governmental objectives in<br />
conflict with rights?<br />
A second <strong>and</strong> more compelling criticism of <strong>the</strong> Canada clause was its<br />
ambiguity regarding whe<strong>the</strong>r aboriginal women, under a system of aboriginal<br />
self-government, would be protected by <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong> Native Women’s<br />
Association of Canada (NWAC) sought an injunction to halt <strong>the</strong> referendum<br />
on <strong>the</strong> bases that 1) its members were excluded from <strong>the</strong> constitutional review<br />
process <strong>and</strong> 2) <strong>the</strong> Accord would undermine protection under <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. This<br />
second argument is most relevant here. <strong>The</strong> concern arose from a proposal to<br />
entrench a “contextual statement” to ensure that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would not prevent<br />
aboriginal governments from safeguarding <strong>and</strong> developing <strong>the</strong>ir languages,<br />
cultures, economies, institutions <strong>and</strong> traditions. NWAC’s criticism was that<br />
<strong>the</strong> Accord would confer significant discretion upon aboriginal governments<br />
to promote traditional <strong>and</strong> collective values that may undermine protection for<br />
individual women’s rights (NWAC, 3).<br />
In response to heavy pressure from aboriginal women, <strong>the</strong> drafters of <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional accord inserted a clause to address <strong>the</strong> equality of aboriginal<br />
men <strong>and</strong> women (Fine). However, <strong>the</strong> draft legal text, which was available<br />
only late in <strong>the</strong> referendum debate, contained ambiguous clauses on <strong>the</strong><br />
relationship between aboriginal policy values <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. While a<br />
proposed amendment to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act 1982 would have guaranteed <strong>the</strong><br />
rights of aboriginal peoples equally regardless of gender (s. 35(7)), <strong>the</strong> Canada<br />
clause, an interpretive clause for <strong>the</strong> entire constitution including <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>,<br />
would have guaranteed aboriginal governments <strong>the</strong> “right to promote <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
languages, cultures <strong>and</strong> traditions <strong>and</strong> to ensure <strong>the</strong> integrity of <strong>the</strong>ir societies”<br />
130
<strong>The</strong> Limitations of a “Rights Must be Paramount”<br />
Perspective<br />
(s. 2(b)). <strong>The</strong>se clauses did little to address NWAC’s concern that women can,<br />
<strong>and</strong> historically have been, harmed by actions taken in <strong>the</strong> name of cultural or<br />
traditional values (NWAC, 3).<br />
It is difficult to conclude that aboriginal women’s reliance on a “rights must be<br />
paramount” framework to assess <strong>the</strong> constitution discouraged meaningful<br />
debate on <strong>the</strong> relationship between rights <strong>and</strong> aboriginal self-government. It<br />
would have been virtually impossible to engage in thoughtful debate about <strong>the</strong><br />
relative significance of collective values, given <strong>the</strong> undefined nature of <strong>the</strong><br />
proposal for aboriginal self-government as well as <strong>the</strong> ambiguity <strong>and</strong> apparent<br />
conflict between <strong>the</strong> preceding clauses.<br />
Conclusions<br />
It is difficult to draw any sharp conclusions about whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> rights must be<br />
paramount perspective will continue to characterize constitutional debate.<br />
Despite an implicit reassessment of <strong>the</strong> utility of this approach in <strong>the</strong> 1991 <strong>and</strong><br />
early 1992 constitutional debate, rights-based assessments assumed an<br />
important role in criticisms of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord in <strong>the</strong> fall of 1992.<br />
Memories of <strong>the</strong> sharp Anglophone/Francophone division generated by <strong>the</strong><br />
distinct society debate in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord likely created a reluctance to<br />
engage in a similar debate in 1991 <strong>and</strong> early 1992. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, as this paper has<br />
suggested, this ethnic/linguistic division subsequently encouraged greater<br />
sensitivity to <strong>the</strong> issue of whe<strong>the</strong>r Quebec’s more collective approach to rights<br />
<strong>and</strong> values could be accommodated within a “rights must be paramount”<br />
perspective.<br />
Rights-based assessments of <strong>the</strong> proposed constitutional amendments did not<br />
generate <strong>the</strong> same Anglophone/Francophone division in <strong>the</strong> later<br />
Charlottetown round. Secure in <strong>the</strong> knowledge of wide-spread opposition to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Accord (both in <strong>and</strong> out of Quebec), conveyed <strong>and</strong> reinforced by frequent<br />
public opinion polling, those with rights-based objections did not have to<br />
weigh <strong>the</strong>se principles against <strong>the</strong> risk of fur<strong>the</strong>r alienating Quebec. <strong>The</strong>re was<br />
not, in o<strong>the</strong>r words, sufficient or compelling reason to reassess <strong>the</strong> prudence of<br />
adopting a “rights must be paramount” assessment of <strong>the</strong> Accord.<br />
Given our limited experience with <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, it is hardly surprising that<br />
attitudes about <strong>the</strong> relationship between citizens <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> state, limits <strong>and</strong> rights<br />
or governments <strong>and</strong> courts are still adjusting to <strong>the</strong> significant societal <strong>and</strong><br />
institutional changes represented by <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Aside from <strong>the</strong> distinct<br />
society debate, we simply have not been compelled by circumstances to<br />
reassess uncritical assumptions about <strong>the</strong> primacy of protected rights. Fur<strong>the</strong>r,<br />
we have not yet been exposed to many fundamentally divisive judicial<br />
outcomes in which <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>-based entitlements are fundamentally at odds with<br />
deeply held values. While <strong>the</strong>re has been a h<strong>and</strong>ful of contentious judicial<br />
cases, <strong>the</strong>se have not been of <strong>the</strong> kind that fundamentally challenge our<br />
intuitive, moral <strong>and</strong> political senses of what is right, just or fair, or that engage<br />
us in protracted <strong>and</strong> contentious discussions of <strong>the</strong> merits of values in conflict<br />
with protected rights. Increasingly, as rights-based claims call into question<br />
<strong>the</strong> validity of strongly held values, we may realize that, under some<br />
circumstances, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s contribution to <strong>the</strong> political process will be less a<br />
matter of vindicating rights-based claims <strong>and</strong> more a responsibility of<br />
determining where our priorities <strong>and</strong> emphases should be placed when<br />
reconciling conflicting values. One consequence of living with <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
may be pressure to rethink <strong>the</strong> utility of a “rights must be paramount”<br />
131
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
perspective, given its inherent limitations in fostering <strong>and</strong> contributing to a<br />
meaningful debate about <strong>the</strong> priorities we assign to competing values. In light<br />
of <strong>the</strong> incompleteness <strong>and</strong> indeterminacy of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s values, it is simply<br />
no answer to argue that if a value is not explicitly mentioned in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, it<br />
cannot <strong>and</strong> should not be accommodated in <strong>the</strong> constitutional order.<br />
Notes<br />
1. Nor does it recognize <strong>the</strong> potential of s. 33 as a means of reconciling non-entrenched values<br />
by temporarily limiting <strong>the</strong> applicability of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. However, <strong>the</strong> unpopularity of <strong>the</strong><br />
legislative override outside Quebec makes it difficult to engage in this discussion.<br />
2. This argument was first made by <strong>the</strong> author in “Representation <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>: Should<br />
Rights be Paramount?” in David Smith <strong>and</strong> John Courtney (ed.), Drawing Boundaries:<br />
Legislatures, Courts <strong>and</strong> Electoral Values, 1992.<br />
3. See for example, Hiebert, “Representation <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>: Should Rights be Paramount?”<br />
4. <strong>The</strong> word <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> here is placed in quotations to recognize <strong>the</strong> limitations of talking about<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights as opposed to protected rights. <strong>The</strong> difficulty with using <strong>the</strong> word <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in<br />
this context is that it connotes, to many, <strong>the</strong> belief that only those rights actually contained in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, as recognized by <strong>the</strong> Court, are constitutionally legitimate. But <strong>the</strong> argument<br />
being made in this paper is that by recognizing different values <strong>and</strong> policies not specifically<br />
enumerated, as a reasonable limit under s. 1, courts may provide constitutional protection to<br />
a broader range of values than those specifically enumerated. Through section 1<br />
interpretations, <strong>the</strong>refore, o<strong>the</strong>r values also receive <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> recognition. For this reason, <strong>the</strong><br />
term “protected rights” is preferable to “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights.”<br />
5. One o<strong>the</strong>r particularly controversial decision was R. v. Seaboyer; R. v. Gayme (1991) 2<br />
S.C.R. 577, in which rape shield legislation (designed to shield women from having <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
sexual histories discussed in sexual assault proceedings) was struck down. Intensive<br />
lobbying, however, resulted in revised legislation which, because it defines consent <strong>and</strong><br />
places <strong>the</strong> onus on <strong>the</strong> alleged assaulter to show intent had been given, may be viewed as a<br />
significant improvement over <strong>the</strong> previous provisions. This revised legislation has not yet<br />
been challenged under <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
6. One of <strong>the</strong> clearest expressions of this position is offered by Lorraine Weinrib, “<strong>The</strong><br />
Supreme Court of Canada <strong>and</strong> Section One of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.” Supreme Court <strong>La</strong>w Review,v.<br />
19, 1988.<br />
7. <strong>The</strong> trilogy consisted of Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), (1987)<br />
1 S.C.R. 313; Government of Saskatchewan v. Retail Wholesale <strong>and</strong> Department Store<br />
Union, Locals 544, 496, 635 & 955, (1987) 1 S.C.R. 460; <strong>and</strong> R. v. Public Service Alliance of<br />
Canada (1987) 1 S.C.R. 424.<br />
8. See, for example, <strong>the</strong> intervening factums by Women’s Legal Education Action Fund in R. v.<br />
Seaboyer; R. v. Gayme (1991) 2 S.C.R. 577.<br />
9. During <strong>the</strong> public hearings of <strong>the</strong> Lortie Commission (Royal Commission on Electoral<br />
Reform <strong>and</strong> Party Financing), four-fifths of intervenors who addressed <strong>the</strong> issue of election<br />
spending limits favoured this principle. This sentiment was mirrored by <strong>the</strong> results of an<br />
attitudinal study in which 93% of respondents supported spending regulations for political<br />
parties. Reforming Electoral Democracy, v. 1, 1991, p. 334.<br />
10. Mary Ann Glendon raises similar criticisms of American “rights talk”. See Mary Ann<br />
Glendon, Rights Talk: <strong>The</strong> Impoverishment of Political Discourse, 1991.<br />
11. Critics who viewed <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause in this manner ascribed little significance to<br />
<strong>the</strong> pan-Canadian aspects of <strong>the</strong> clause; specifically, <strong>the</strong> recognition in s. 2(1)(a) of Frenchspeaking<br />
Canadians present in Quebec which are part of <strong>the</strong> fundamental characteristics of<br />
Canada.<br />
12. <strong>The</strong>se organizations were <strong>the</strong> National Association of Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>La</strong>w (NAWL), <strong>the</strong><br />
Women’s Legal Education <strong>and</strong> Act Fund (LEAF), <strong>the</strong> Canadian Advisory Council on <strong>the</strong><br />
Status of Women (CACSW), <strong>the</strong> National Action Committee on <strong>the</strong> Status of Women<br />
(NAC) <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ad Hoc Committee of Women on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>.<br />
13. Carol Goar, “How PM Infuriated Women’s Groups,” Toronto Star, August 27, 1987, A2.<br />
132
14. <strong>The</strong> only change made was a modification of <strong>the</strong> skeleton proposal of <strong>the</strong> April 30, 1987<br />
meeting of 11 First Ministers. In that day-long session <strong>the</strong> Ministers achieved agreement in<br />
principle for <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke proposals but left, for a later date, <strong>the</strong> task of fleshing out <strong>the</strong><br />
legal text. Changes were in response to criticisms that <strong>the</strong> clause, as originally worded,<br />
promoted <strong>the</strong> notion of “two Canadas.” <strong>The</strong> original clause recognized “<strong>the</strong> existence of<br />
French-speaking Canada, centred in but not limited to Quebec, <strong>and</strong> English-speaking<br />
Canada, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Canada.” <strong>The</strong> new phrasing<br />
reflected an attempt to eliminate <strong>the</strong> conception of two Canadas by altering <strong>the</strong> reference to<br />
“French-speaking Canada” <strong>and</strong> “English-speaking Canada.” <strong>The</strong> new wording recognized<br />
“<strong>the</strong> existence of French-speaking Canadians ...<strong>and</strong>English-speaking Canadians”. <strong>The</strong><br />
significance of <strong>the</strong> change is <strong>the</strong> clause defined groups of people ra<strong>the</strong>r than geographical<br />
regions.<br />
15. Senator Lowell Murray was particularly emphatic in his suggestion that <strong>the</strong> distinct society<br />
clause would not adversely affect protected rights in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Joint Parliamentary<br />
Committee, August 4, 1987, 2:50.<br />
16. While Wells was willing to consider having <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> interpreted in a manner consistent<br />
with <strong>the</strong> preservation <strong>and</strong> promotion of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, he did<br />
express concern with <strong>the</strong> wording of <strong>the</strong> federal proposal. His recommendation was to make<br />
it clear that <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause would only affect <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> interpretations of Quebec<br />
<strong>and</strong> not federal laws. A second concern with <strong>the</strong> wording was <strong>the</strong> possibility that <strong>the</strong><br />
definition of “distinct society” might be broadened over time to include considerations o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than language, culture <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> civil law tradition.<br />
17. Some individuals <strong>and</strong> groups have continued to argue that <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause would<br />
undermine individual rights. However, like <strong>the</strong> 1991 federal proposal, <strong>the</strong> clause did not<br />
generate <strong>the</strong> same degree of opposition as during <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke debate. For criticism of<br />
distinct society in <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord, see Deborah Coyne <strong>and</strong> Robert Howse, No<br />
Deal: Why Canadians should reject <strong>the</strong> Mulroney <strong>Constitution</strong>, 1992.<br />
Bibliography<br />
<strong>The</strong> Limitations of a “Rights Must be Paramount”<br />
Perspective<br />
Baines, Bev. “Why <strong>La</strong>wyers Should Vote ‘No’,” Kate Su<strong>the</strong>rl<strong>and</strong>, ed., Perspectives on <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord, Centre for <strong>Constitution</strong>al Studies, 1992.<br />
Bonenfant, Claire. Fédération des femmes du Québec, Minutes of Proceedings <strong>and</strong> Evidence of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Special Joint Committee of <strong>the</strong> Senate <strong>and</strong> of <strong>the</strong> House of Commons on <strong>the</strong> 1987<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Accord, 13:44-45.<br />
Brock, Kathy L. “A M<strong>and</strong>ate Fulfilled: <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Manitoba Task Force on<br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke.” 1990.<br />
Canada. Reforming Electoral Democracy, v. 1, 1991.<br />
Canada. Renewal of Canada Conferences: Compendium of Reports, <strong>Constitution</strong>al Conferences<br />
Secretariat, 1992.<br />
Canada. “Shaping Canada’s Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r: Proposals,” Minister of Supply <strong>and</strong> Services, 1991.<br />
Cohen, M. Joint Parliamentary Committee Hearings, 18 October 1980, 7:86.<br />
Dworkin, Ronald, “Liberalism,” in Michael S<strong>and</strong>el, ed., Liberalism <strong>and</strong> its Critics, 1984.<br />
Equality Eve. “<strong>The</strong> Government’s Proposals <strong>and</strong> How <strong>The</strong>y Could Affect You,” 1991.<br />
Everitt, Donna. Br<strong>and</strong>on Women’s Study Group. Special Joint Committee.<br />
Fine, Sean. “Native Women aim to block national referendum campaign in Court,” Globe <strong>and</strong><br />
Mail, Oct. 13, 1992, A10.<br />
Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, “Bourassa’s use of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> clause shows his vision of distinct Quebec”,<br />
December 22, 1988, A1, A5.<br />
Goar, Carol. “How PM Infuriated Women’s Groups,” Toronto Star, August 27, 1987, A2.<br />
Henderson, Keith. Canadians for Equality of Rights under <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, Special Joint<br />
Committee, 17 December 1991, 32:34.<br />
Hiebert, Janet. “<strong>The</strong> Evolution of <strong>the</strong> Limitation Clause in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>,” Osgoode Hall <strong>La</strong>w<br />
Journal, Winter 1990.<br />
Hiebert, Janet. “Representation <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>: Should Rights be Paramount?”, David Smith <strong>and</strong><br />
John Courtney (ed.), Drawing Boundaries: Legislatures, Courts <strong>and</strong> Electoral Values,<br />
1992.<br />
Hiebert, Janet. Ph.D dissertation, “Determining <strong>the</strong> Limits of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Rights: How Much<br />
Discretion do Governments Retain?”, University of Toronto, 1991.<br />
Horowitz, G. “Conservatism, Liberalism <strong>and</strong> Socialism in Canada: An Interpretation,” Canadian<br />
Journal of Economics <strong>and</strong> Political Science, v. xxxii, 1966.<br />
133
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Knopff, Rainer <strong>and</strong> F.L. Morton. “Nation-Building <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong><br />
Freedoms,” <strong>Constitution</strong>alism, Citizenship <strong>and</strong> Society in Canada, Alan Cairns <strong>and</strong> Cynthia<br />
Williams, eds., Coordinators, 1985.<br />
M<strong>and</strong>el, Michael. <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Legalization of Politics in Canada, 1989.<br />
Monahan, Patrick. Politics <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>: <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court<br />
of Canada. 1987.<br />
NAC Response to Federal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Proposals. Oct. 25, 1991.<br />
Native Women’s Association of Canada, Press Release, September 21, 1992.<br />
Peck, Sidney. “An Analytical Framework for <strong>the</strong> Application of <strong>The</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
<strong>and</strong> Freedoms.” Osgoode Hall <strong>La</strong>w Journal, v. 25, 1987.<br />
Rebick, Judy. President National Action Committee on <strong>the</strong> Status of Women. Special Joint<br />
Committee on a Renewed Canada, 29 Oct. 1991, 10:18-19.<br />
Russell, Peter H. “Political Purposes of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>,” <strong>The</strong> Canadian Bar Review, March<br />
1983.<br />
Schneiderman, David. (ed.) “Conversations Among Friends,” Proceedings of an interdisciplinary<br />
Conference on Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform, Centre for <strong>Constitution</strong>al Studies,<br />
Edmonton, 1992.<br />
Smith, Lynn. “<strong>The</strong> Distinct Society Clause in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord: Could it Affect Equality<br />
Rights for Women?” in Competing <strong>Constitution</strong>al Visions. 1988<br />
Wells, Clyde. “Commentary on <strong>the</strong> Federal Government’s Proposals, Shaping Canada’s Future<br />
Toge<strong>the</strong>r,” 22 October 1991, Presented to <strong>the</strong> Newfoundl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>La</strong>brador Committee on<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>.<br />
134
Linda Cardinal<br />
Les mouvements sociaux et la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne<br />
des droits et libertés*<br />
Résumé<br />
Cet article propose une analyse critique de trois modes d’interprétation quant<br />
à la portée de la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits et libertés : la judiciarisation de<br />
la politique; la prédominance des droits individuels sur les droits collectifs; et,<br />
enfin, les rapports entre démocratie et citoyenneté. Bien que ces modes aient<br />
donné le ton aux débats sur les possibilités de changement dans la société<br />
canadienne, leur validité est loin d’être démontrée. En conclusion, l’article<br />
tente d’élucider les rapports entre les mouvements sociaux et la <strong>Charte</strong>.<br />
Abstract<br />
This article offers a critical analysis of three ways of interpreting <strong>the</strong> scope of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms: <strong>the</strong> judicialization of politics;<br />
<strong>the</strong> predominance of individual over collective rights; <strong>and</strong>, lastly, <strong>the</strong> ties<br />
between democracy <strong>and</strong> citizenship. Although <strong>the</strong>se interpretations have set<br />
<strong>the</strong> tone of debate over possibilities for change in Canadian society, <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
validity is far from proven. In conclusion, <strong>the</strong> article attempts to elucidate <strong>the</strong><br />
ties between social movements <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
L’éclosion, dans les années 1980, de mouvements sociaux avant tout<br />
préoccupés de la précarité des droits de la personne semble avoir favorisé<br />
l’émergence à l’échelle mondiale des conditions nécessaires à l’action sociale<br />
et politique (Cairns, 1986). Sc<strong>and</strong>alisés par le totalitarisme de plusieurs pays<br />
dits démocratiques et populaires, des gens de divers horizons ont entrepris de<br />
remettre en cause la problématique révolutionnaire (Ferry et Renault, 1985), si<br />
bien que l’idée d’une transformation « radicale » de la société ne se posera plus<br />
réellement (Keane, 1988). Désormais, le changement découlera davantage de<br />
l’action de groupes à l’intérieur de mouvements qui deviendront, eux, des<br />
lieux d’appartenance et des espaces de rassemblement (Melucci, 1983).<br />
Le Canada n’a pas échappé à ce courant. Soucieux de protéger les citoyennes et<br />
citoyens contre les abus, le gouvernement fédéral adopte en 1982 la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
canadienne des droits et libertés, ce qui devait entraîner l’apparition au pays<br />
d’un « mouvement social » voué à la défense des droits de la personne.<br />
Quoique fragmenté, ce mouvement en vient à constituer une force bien<br />
supérieure à celle de tout groupe particulier. <strong>La</strong> nouvelle loi constitutionnelle<br />
ouvre en outre aux mouvements sociaux des champs d’action en faveur des<br />
personnes directement touchées par la <strong>Charte</strong> : femmes, autochtones,<br />
personnes h<strong>and</strong>icapées, membres des minorités raciales, ethniques et<br />
linguistiques. Elle encourage la politisation de leurs revendications,<br />
notamment en matière d’avortement, d’action positive, de droits des<br />
autochtones et des minorités de langue française de l’extérieur du Québec. Si,<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
en un sens, la <strong>Charte</strong> ne fait qu’accompagner des changements qui étaient déjà<br />
en marche avant 1982, son adoption marque toutefois un moment important<br />
pour les mouvements sociaux. Elle les amène à sortir leurs revendications du<br />
domaine des questions spécifiques pour en faire des questions de droits de la<br />
personne en même temps que des enjeux politiques reliés à la définition de la<br />
citoyenneté au Canada, leur permettant d’acquérir en corollaire une légitimité<br />
politique sans précédent au pays.<br />
Cette situation fait du Canada un cas intéressant en vue d’une réflexion sur les<br />
mouvements sociaux d’aujourd’hui, puisque la <strong>Charte</strong> nous oblige à<br />
reconsidérer le rapport entre les intervenants sociaux et l’espace politique.<br />
Malheureusement, on n’a guère étudié l’incidence de la <strong>Charte</strong> sur les<br />
mouvements sociaux au Canada. Nous savons que les groupes, notamment le<br />
mouvement des femmes (Gotell, 1991), ont pris part au débat menant à<br />
l’adoption de la <strong>Charte</strong>, mais peu d’analyses ont porté sur l’utilisation qu’ils en<br />
ont fait par la suite. À l’exception de certaines études de cas, réalisées surtout<br />
par les féministes (Fudge, 1987; Brodsky et Day 1989; Razack, 1991; Brodie<br />
et al., 1992), presque tout reste à faire1.<br />
On s’en est tenu jusqu’ici à débattre ses effets sur la société canadienne, se<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>ant, par exemple, si elle ne condamnait pas le Canada à suivre la voie<br />
des États-Unis dans l’utilisation que l’on pourra faire de la référence aux droits<br />
de la personne. Certaines, certains ont décrit de nouveaux phénomènes qui<br />
confirmeraient cette hypothèse : la judiciarisation2 de la politique (M<strong>and</strong>el,<br />
1989) et la prédominance des droits individuels sur les droits collectifs<br />
(Bourque, 1990). D’autres ont cherché à comprendre comment la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
permettait de repenser les rapports entre la démocratie et la citoyenneté<br />
(Cairns, 1986; Taylor, 1986).<br />
Sans porter directement sur les mouvements sociaux, ces différents modes<br />
d’interprétation ont cependant donné le ton aux débats sur les possibilités de<br />
changement aujourd’hui, agissant ainsi sur l’articulation du lien entre les<br />
groupes et la <strong>Charte</strong>. Or, aussi bien sur les plans théorique qu’empirique, la<br />
validité des hypothèses qu’on nous propose reste à démontrer, surtout<br />
lorsqu’elles intéressent les mouvements sociaux. Comme, par ailleurs, la<br />
sociologie s’oriente depuis 1982 vers l’analyse de l’action des groupes, une<br />
lecture critique des modes d’interprétation de la <strong>Charte</strong> s’impose donc. Qui<br />
plus est, nous tenterons dans ce texte d’articuler les deux domaines en vue de<br />
repenser les mouvements sociaux en fonction de la <strong>Charte</strong>.<br />
Il s’agira, dans un premier temps, de procéder à un bref rappel de la sociologie<br />
des mouvements sociaux afin d’en préciser l’expression et de situer nos propos<br />
dans le temps avant de nous livrer à une lecture critique des différentes<br />
interprétations de la portée de la <strong>Charte</strong> sur la société canadienne. Pour<br />
conclure, nous reprendrons ces analyses pour mieux revenir à notre<br />
questionnement : définir le rapport des actrices et acteurs à l’espace politique<br />
et tenter d’esquisser les gr<strong>and</strong>es lignes de notre compréhension de la<br />
pertinence de la <strong>Charte</strong> dans l’étude des mouvements sociaux et du<br />
changement.<br />
Parce qu’elle repose essentiellement sur l’efficacité de notre dialectique et, en<br />
bout de ligne, sur nos opinions, pareille entreprise a des limites évidentes,<br />
notamment celle de ne pas éclairer la portée de la <strong>Charte</strong> sur le plan empirique.<br />
Néanmoins, elle nous apparaît nécessaire dans la mesure où nous sommes<br />
138
Les mouvements sociaux et la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits<br />
et libertés<br />
insatisfaite de ce que nous proposent les interprètes de la <strong>Charte</strong>, surtout<br />
lorsqu’ils interpellent les mouvements sociaux.<br />
<strong>La</strong> sociologie des mouvements sociaux<br />
Nous rattachons notre étude du cas canadien à la sociologie des mouvements<br />
sociaux, car notre intérêt principal est le changement social contemporain tel<br />
qu’il a été étudié dans ce champ. Alain Touraine (1974), qui a donné le ton aux<br />
analyses sur la question, a réussi à créer un consensus autour de la définition de<br />
mouvement social, définition que son collaborateur Michel Wieviorka résume<br />
ainsi :<br />
...une action conflictuelle, inscrite dans un rapport structurel de<br />
domination, portée par un acteur capable de se reconnaître dans une<br />
identité sociale et d’en reconnaître une à son adversaire, capable<br />
également de se situer sur un terrain qui est le même pour l’acteur<br />
auquel il s’oppose — et donc d’agir pour le contrôle des mêmes<br />
enjeux, des mêmes ressources culturelles. (1991 : 154)<br />
Depuis les années soixante-dix, la sociologie des mouvements sociaux<br />
s’appuie largement sur cette définition et ses analyses portent principalement<br />
sur les protagonistes, leurs projets, leurs luttes, leur culture politique et leur<br />
capacité à limiter le pouvoir de l’État (Castoriadis, 1975, 1979; Maheu, 1983;<br />
Touraine, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1984). Pendant les années quatre-vingts, nous<br />
avons aussi été amenés à nous dem<strong>and</strong>er si les mouvements étaient porteurs<br />
d’une stratégie de radicalisation de la démocratie (<strong>La</strong>clau et Mouffe, 1985),<br />
d’une politique de radicalisme auto-limitatif (Cohen 1985), d’une action en<br />
vue du développement d’une société civile démocratique et socialiste (Keane<br />
1988) ou de pratiques individuelles et collectives mondiales (Hégédus, 1989).<br />
Au Canada, les analyses des mouvements sociaux ont accordé une gr<strong>and</strong>e<br />
importance à la société civile (Briskin, Adamson et McPhail, 1988; Gagnon et<br />
Rioux, 1988; Magnusson, 1990; Thériault, 1985).<br />
Ces quelques références montrent que la sociologie des mouvements sociaux a<br />
beaucoup été préoccupée par les fins, c’est-à-dire par l’option politique, se<br />
caractérisant par une approche de type volontariste selon laquelle les acteurs<br />
seraient au centre des changements sociaux (Skocpol, 1985). Par conséquent,<br />
elle s’est moins intéressée au rapport entre les protagonistes et le contexte<br />
politique et ses institutions. Au Canada, avant comme après l’adoption de la<br />
<strong>Charte</strong>, la sociologie s’est peu penchée sur la façon dont, par exemple, l’État<br />
(les pouvoirs législatif, exécutif et judiciaire) a contribué au développement et<br />
à la structuration de l’action.<br />
De surcroît, la sociologie des mouvements sociaux n’a pas encore, à notre<br />
connaissance, proposé de repères d’ordre théorique susceptibles de nous<br />
éclairer sur la question des droits. Elle est demeurée relativement silencieuse<br />
sur la signification des revendications en matière notamment d’avortement,<br />
d’égalité, de paix, d’autodétermination3. Elle a plutôt pensé les mouvements<br />
sociaux à l’extérieur de la problématique des droits pour analyser leurs visées<br />
de changement plus radical.<br />
Également, elle a étudié les mouvements sociaux en postulant essentiellement<br />
que l’État ne pouvait que s’employer à les contrôler (Keane, 1988; Ng, 1990).<br />
Or, au Canada, les gouvernements ont, jusque pendant les années quatrevingts,<br />
joué un rôle relativement important dans la mobilisation des groupes<br />
139
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
sociaux, que ce soit au moyen de programmes visant à encourager la<br />
participation démocratique des citoyennes et des citoyens au développement<br />
communautaire4, de commissions royales d’enquête5 ou de subventions<br />
directes à des groupes donnés.<br />
Ces quelques observations montrent que nous n’avons pas suffisamment de<br />
moyens pour expliquer la part qui revient aux mouvements sociaux dans le<br />
changement contemporain. Nous savons qu’ils sont des espaces de<br />
rassemblement et de débats, qu’ils soulèvent des enjeux importants et qu’ils<br />
font avancer les mentalités. L’absence d’études de cas pouvant nous éclairer<br />
sur la question traduit toutefois la nature plutôt générale à ce jour des analyses à<br />
ce sujet. Notre intérêt pour la <strong>Charte</strong> provient donc de ce fait qu’elle oblige la<br />
sociologie à situer l’action des groupes sur le plan politique6 et à comprendre<br />
son développement.<br />
<strong>La</strong> <strong>Charte</strong><br />
Rappelons rapidement que la <strong>Charte</strong> vient remplacer la Loi canadienne sur les<br />
droits de la personne promulguée en 1960, laquelle n’avait aucune portée<br />
constitutionnelle ni effet dans les champs de compétence provinciaux. À cet<br />
égard, la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 va beaucoup plus loin, reconnaissant,<br />
entre autres, certains droits à caractère collectif et la légitimité des mesures<br />
d’accès à l’égalité (affirmative action). Ainsi, l’article 15 (1), par exemple,<br />
stipule que :«<strong>La</strong>loinefait acception de personne et s’applique également à<br />
tous, et tous ont droit à la même protection et au même bénéfice de la loi,<br />
indépendamment de toute discrimination, notamment des discriminations<br />
fondées sur la race, l’origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le<br />
sexe, l’âge ou les déficiences mentales ou physiques », t<strong>and</strong>is que le<br />
paragraphe (2) du même article exempte expressément les mesures visant à<br />
« améliorer » la situation des groupes des effets restrictifs des dispositions<br />
relatives à l’égalité formelle7. L’article 27 consacre le principe du multiculturalisme de la société canadienne<br />
alors que l’article 28 précise que la <strong>Charte</strong> s’applique également aux hommes<br />
et aux femmes8. De plus, ses articles 16 à 20 consacrent la nature bilingue du<br />
pays et l’article 23 garantit les droits à l’éducation dans la langue maternelle<br />
des membres des minorités linguistiques.<br />
T<strong>and</strong>is que la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne donne lieu à peu<br />
d’activisme juridique en ce qui a trait à la défense des droits civils, la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
inaugure un important processus de révision judiciaire. Mis à part les cas<br />
relevant du Code criminel qu’on attendait de régler avec l’entrée en vigueur de<br />
la <strong>Charte</strong>, les mouvements sociaux, tout particulièrement, choisiront de<br />
soumettre aux tribunaux diverses questions touchant les droits à incidence<br />
collective, comme ceux des femmes et des minorités. Pour faciliter ce<br />
processus, le Secrétariat d’État créera la Commission des droits de la personne<br />
qui subventionnera les groupes désireux d’emprunter la voie judiciaire pour<br />
faire reconnaître leurs droits. Jusqu’en 1992, le gouvernement canadien<br />
finance aussi un programme de contestation judiciaire dont le budget de plus<br />
de 8 millions de dollars servira à appuyer financièrement « la contestation<br />
devant les tribunaux judiciaires de causes types reliées, entre autres, aux litiges<br />
de nature linguistique » (1991 : 1). Ce programme soutenait aussi les causes<br />
touchant le droit des groupes (femmes, autochtones, personnes h<strong>and</strong>icapées et<br />
minorités visibles) à l’égalité.<br />
140
Les mouvements sociaux et la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits<br />
et libertés<br />
De plus, certains groupes créent leur propre fonds pour « financer des<br />
contestations découlant de la <strong>Charte</strong> » (Knopff et Morton, 1986 : 175) et<br />
intervenir dans des causes types afin de faire avancer la jurisprudence dans ces<br />
dossiers9. Signalons, entre autres, l’Association canadienne pour les libertés<br />
civiles, le Comité canadien d’action sur le statut de la femme (CCA),<br />
l’Association nationale des femmes et du droit (ANFD), le Women’s Legal<br />
Education <strong>and</strong> Action Fund (LEAF). Pour leur part, les juges, sous le nouveau<br />
régime de 1982, ont eu à prendre des décisions importantes en ce qui a trait, par<br />
exemple, au choix en matière d’avortement (Morgentaler, 1988), à la Loi 101<br />
au Québec (Brown, 1990), ou à la gestion scolaire en milieu francophone<br />
minoritaire (Mahé, 1990).<br />
Manifestement, la <strong>Charte</strong> a poussé les mouvements sociaux sur la voie de<br />
l’activisme juridique et du changement institutionnel. Elle a aussi eu pour effet<br />
de les sortir du modèle traditionnel de gestionnaires de la revendication sociale<br />
pour devenir des gestionnaires de droits qui favorisent l’avènement de<br />
titulaires de nouveaux droits et donc de nouveaux protagonistes<br />
constitutionnels. Or, si la sociologie s’est peu intéressée à ce phénomène, des<br />
interprètes de la <strong>Charte</strong> n’ont pas tardé à faire connaître leurs vues sur ses<br />
effets. En se dem<strong>and</strong>ant si la <strong>Charte</strong> contribuait à l’américanisation de la<br />
société, à la prédominance des droits individuels sur les droits collectifs et à la<br />
remise en cause de la démocratie politique, ils ont indiqué des pistes de<br />
réflexion fécondes pour une sociologie des mouvements sociaux qui tente de<br />
comprendre le politique. D’où l’intérêt que nous leur portons.<br />
<strong>La</strong> <strong>Charte</strong> et ses interprétations<br />
Trois types d’interprétation de la <strong>Charte</strong> et de sa portée sur les groupes et, de<br />
façon plus large, sur le développement de la société canadienne, soit la<br />
citoyenneté méritent d’être examinés. Un premier discours, formulé par<br />
Michael M<strong>and</strong>el (1989) et la gauche canadienne-anglaise, juge que la Loi<br />
constitutionnelle de 1982 relève d’actions non démocratiques servant à<br />
dépolitiser le débat sur les questions sociales. Elle aurait pour effet de réduire<br />
la politique au juridique accélérant ainsi le mouvement, déjà en cours,<br />
d’américanisation de la société canadienne. Un deuxième, tenu par Gilles<br />
Bourque (1990) et les nationalistes québécois, estime que la <strong>Charte</strong> consacre<br />
la prédominance des droits individuels sur les droits collectifs, ce qui<br />
accentuerait également l’américanisation de la société canadienne et<br />
renverrait à l’histoire toute vision de la nation fondée sur la communauté. Une<br />
troisième approche, adoptée par Alan Cairns (1986) et une certaine élite<br />
libérale canadienne-anglaise, concentre son analyse sur les objectifs initiaux<br />
de la <strong>Charte</strong> : la protection des droits des citoyennes et des citoyens et<br />
l’épanouissement de la nation canadienne (le « nation-building »).<br />
Les deux premières interprétations interpellent les mouvements sociaux parce<br />
qu’elles supposent que la <strong>Charte</strong> les condamne à participer à l’américanisation<br />
de la société canadienne. Aux yeux des tenants de la troisième interprétation, la<br />
<strong>Charte</strong> favoriserait plutôt « la reconnaissance de clivages sociaux au pays à<br />
partir desquels la capacité de la <strong>Charte</strong> à contribuer à l’unité canadienne<br />
semble plus difficile à réaliser que prévu. » En effet, selon Cairns, « du point<br />
de vue de la démocratie, le problème est le suivant : la politisation des divisions<br />
sociales, jointe à la multiplication des différentiations typiques de la société<br />
moderne, érode notre identité de citoyens préoccupés par la totalité de la<br />
société » (1986 : 92). De plus, le rapprochement de l’État et des groupes pour<br />
structurer l’action de ces derniers mène à l’établissement d’un rapport patron-<br />
141
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
client, ce qui rend encore plus difficile l’identification de ces groupes à une<br />
vision commune de la citoyenneté.<br />
Ainsi, les objectifs politiques de la <strong>Charte</strong> interpellent les mouvements<br />
sociaux dans la mesure où ils seraient, selon cette dernière interprétation,<br />
devenus la cinquième roue du carosse. Doit-on conclure que les mouvements<br />
sociaux entravent la réalisation des objectifs d’unité nationale ou d’une<br />
redéfinition de la citoyenneté au Canada ? <strong>La</strong> thèse de Cairns porte à réfléchir<br />
sur cette dernière question, et c’est ici qu’une sociologie des mouvements<br />
sociaux devrait permettre de la valider ou non. De surcroît, elle pourra aussi se<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>er si les mouvements sont l’objet d’une manipulation politique au<br />
profit d’une américanisation de la société ou encore des besoins de légitimité<br />
de l’État canadien. Nous allons, dans les pages qui suivent, tenter de jeter un<br />
certain éclairage théorique sur ces questions.<br />
L’hypothèse de la judiciarisation de la politique<br />
<strong>La</strong> première hypothèse, nous l’avons déjà dit, a été formulée largement par<br />
l’intelligentsia canadienne-anglaise (de gauche), notamment par Michael<br />
M<strong>and</strong>el, auteur du livre <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Legalization of Politics<br />
of Canada (1989). Selon lui, la <strong>Charte</strong> est une initiative non démocratique<br />
relevant d’un mouvement qui vise la judiciarisation de la politique au Canada<br />
et qui est, de surcroît, au service du plus fort. Ainsi, les individus et les groupes<br />
concernés par la <strong>Charte</strong> deviendraient des victimes de garanties<br />
constitutionnelles qui devaient, en principe, les protéger contre les abus des<br />
plus forts.<br />
Évidemment, nous ne pouvons nier le fait que la <strong>Charte</strong> encourage une<br />
certaine judiciarisation des débats politiques au Canada et l’avènement d’un<br />
gouvernement des juges qui peuvent désormais se substituer aux législateurs.<br />
Les juges interviennent dans les débats en vertu de leur autorité et du pouvoir<br />
qui leur est conféré, ce qui peut parfois inquiéter même dans les cas où ils<br />
décideraient en faveur des « plus faibles ». Mais à l’opposé des tenants de<br />
l’hypothèse de la judiciarisation, nous estimons que cette situation est<br />
antérieure à 1982. À titre d’exemple, de 1969 à 1988, le débat sur le droit des<br />
femmes en matière d’avortement a été fortement caractérisé par l’intervention<br />
des juges chargés d’interpréter la loi existante. Par contre, en 1988, le jugement<br />
de la Cour suprême du Canada dans l’affaire Morgentaler se démarque de cette<br />
tendance en déclarant la Loi sur l’avortement inconstitutionnelle. Ainsi, les<br />
juges renvoient aux femmes et aux hommes politiques la responsabilité de<br />
légiférer sur la question. Ils s’abstiennent également de recomm<strong>and</strong>ations en la<br />
matière, indiquant clairement à la classe politique leur refus d’assumer son<br />
rôle. Pour sa part, le gouvernement Mulroney tire profit du fait que ce soit les<br />
juges qui tranchent la question de l’avortement, évitant ainsi de se mettre à dos<br />
une partie de l’électorat. De fait, le débat sur le droit des femmes en cette<br />
matière illustre bien comment, au Canada, les législateurs et le gouvernement<br />
veulent confier aux juges le soin de décider de quel côté il faut pencher10 !De<br />
plus, le droit qui se projette comme un moyen de transformation sociale est ici<br />
perçu comme une échappatoire.<br />
Néanmoins, les questions qui hantent la société canadienne — avortement,<br />
droits linguistiques et équité—ainsi que les débats n’en sont pas pour autant<br />
dépolitisés et les mouvements démobilisés. Aussi, l’idée de la judiciarisation<br />
de la politique semble bien constituer un prétexte pour faire valoir une vision<br />
142
Les mouvements sociaux et la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits<br />
et libertés<br />
manichéenne du pouvoir : celle des « forts » contre les « faibles », celle du<br />
pouvoir juridique contre le pouvoir politique.<br />
Cependant, la critique selon laquelle la judiciarisation du politique se<br />
produirait au détriment du lien communautaire qui unit les membres d’un<br />
groupe ne manque pas d’intérêt (Thériault, 1988). Elle vise à comprendre<br />
l’incidence du droit sur le développement des communautés francophones et<br />
acadiennes du Canada tout en permettant de contextualiser le recours au droit<br />
au lieu de le dénoncer. Selon Thériault (1990), il faut reconnaître que les luttes<br />
judiciaires francophones pour le droit à l’éducation se situent dans la<br />
mouvance actuelle de l’individualisme en ce qu’elles libèrent « l’individu des<br />
pesanteurs du social » (1990 : 141). Cela lui permet d’entretenir une relation<br />
légale avec le monde plutôt qu’un rapport organique. Et plus une société se<br />
posera la question des droits, plus on assistera à un élargissement de son espace<br />
juridique11. Ainsi, le phénomène de la judiciarisation de la politique fait appel<br />
à une réflexion plus large sur le droit comme facteur de modernisation des<br />
sociétés.<br />
Cette analyse rejoint celle de Taylor (1986 : 253) selon qui on ne peut, en effet,<br />
nier la pertinence du droit ou des droits dans la société moderne. Il nous ramène<br />
néanmoins à la question de l’américanisation de la société canadienne en<br />
proposant de situer le droit dans le contexte de la démocratie. Le Canada,<br />
précise-t-il, est une société davantage fondée sur un modèle politique de<br />
participation que sur celui des droits individuels. Aussi, une société qui prône<br />
un modèle de droits individuels comme les États-Unis reconnaît aux groupes<br />
ou particuliers la possibilité d’affirmer leurs droits contre l’opinion de la<br />
majorité (1986 : 237). On doit donc conclure que le choix du droit comme<br />
moyen de faire avancer la situation des groupes sociaux défavorisés peut<br />
conduire à l’américanisation de la société. Or, il n’en demeure pas moins que<br />
l’utilisation qu’en ont fait, par exemple, les femmes et les minorités<br />
linguistiques a enfin permis d’actualiser des droits que la majorité<br />
reconnaissait en principe.<br />
Des droits qui s’affrontent<br />
<strong>La</strong> question de la judiciarisation de la politique déborde sur une autre<br />
interprétation selon laquelle la <strong>Charte</strong> conduit à renforcer la prédominance des<br />
droits individuels sur les droits collectifs. Cette idée, soutenue tout<br />
particulièrement par les nationalistes québécois, a été formulée<br />
principalement par Gilles Bourque (1990) puis étudiée par Robert V<strong>and</strong>ycke<br />
(1990).<br />
Selon Bourque, « la <strong>Charte</strong> tend à provoquer une véritable régression des<br />
aspects communautaires de la représentation du monde12 » (1990 : 158),<br />
ajoutant qu’elle produit « un net rétrécissement de la communauté nationale<br />
minoritaire » (159). Pourtant, certaines de ses dispositions, notamment celles<br />
portant sur l’action positive (affirmative action) reconnaissent l’existence de<br />
groupes même s’il est vrai qu’elle n’enchâsse pas le droit des Québécoises et<br />
des Québécois à l’autodétermination, lequel correspondrait à un droit collectif.<br />
Mais la <strong>Charte</strong> ne peut être réduite, comme dans le cas des jugements par les<br />
dispositions de la Loi 101 en matière d’affichage, à certaines interprétations de<br />
juges qui auraient accordé la priorité au droit individuel d’afficher en anglais<br />
sur les droits collectifs des Québécoises et des Québécois. L’accent que le<br />
Québec met sur les droits collectifs peut donner l’impression que celui-ci est<br />
prêt à sacrifier les droits individuels de sa population alors que la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
143
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
québécoise des droits et libertés reconnaît elle aussi des droits individuels à ses<br />
citoyennes et citoyens.<br />
L’interprétation selon laquelle la <strong>Charte</strong> fait prédominer les droits individuels<br />
sur les droits collectifs participe elle aussi d’une vision manichéenne du<br />
pouvoir : celle des Canadiens anglais contre les Québécois francophones et<br />
vice-versa. <strong>La</strong> distinction entre les deux notions de droits individuels et de<br />
droits collectifs relève plutôt de la confusion. On mélange, comme l’écrit<br />
Marie (1988 : 191-200), « le titulaire des droits de l’homme » et « les<br />
conditions de réalisation de ceux-ci en réduisant le sujet au mode d’exercise de<br />
ses droits ». Droits individuels et droits collectifs ne sont pas nécessairement<br />
des synonymes mais, selon Marie, « le droit des peuples à l’auto-détermination<br />
a souvent été présenté, tant lors de l’élaboration de pactes qu’après l’adoption<br />
de ces instruments, comme la condition indispensable du respect des droits de<br />
l’homme » (194).<br />
Nous pourrions citer longuement ce spécialiste des droits de la personne qui a<br />
réussi à clarifier les ambiguïtés « sémantiques » et « méthodologiques » qui<br />
caractérisent les notions de droits individuels et de droits collectifs13. En effet,<br />
le Québec reconnaît dans sa propre <strong>Charte</strong> la question des droits individuels et<br />
le Canada, nous l’avons vu précédemment, fait de même pour les droits<br />
collectifs. D’ailleurs, l’actualisation des droits, que l’on parle de droits à portée<br />
individuelle ou collective, est identique dans les deux cas.<br />
Tout comme Thériault (1990), nous insistons sur le fait que les droits, qu’ils<br />
soient individuels ou collectifs, remettent en question l’espace de la<br />
communauté et ses fondements historico-génétiques, et c’est en cela qu’ils<br />
sont intéressants. Le droit permet aux individus de se projeter dans l’avenir à<br />
partir d’une discussion sur leur devenir et de participer à une communauté ou à<br />
des mouvements sur une base volontaire. Ainsi, le droit rejoint les aspirations<br />
des mouvements sociaux d’une société qui vise l’autonomie individuelle et<br />
collective. Autrement, ils sont condamnés à fonder leur appartenance au<br />
monde sur une communauté empirique et inscrite dans une autre réalité,<br />
notamment biologique, alors que le rejet du naturalisme est justement un de<br />
leur cheval de bataille14. Comme cas d’espèce, le conflit entre francophones et anglophones correspond<br />
plutôt à une incompatibilité d’idéologies politiques justifiée par la référence<br />
symbolique aux droits individuels par rapport aux droits collectifs qu’à des<br />
réalités nécessairement contradictoires15. Il faudrait voir davantage le jeu de<br />
l’idéologie dans le contexte de la <strong>Charte</strong> afin de mieux comprendre pourquoi<br />
des groupes peuvent se prévaloir de certains droits alors que cela est<br />
impossible pour d’autres, comme c’est le cas pour les Québécoises et les<br />
Québécois par rapport au Canada16. Sila<strong>Charte</strong> contribue à la dépolitisation<br />
des débats, elle révèle d’emblée sa nature politique. Par contre, affirmer<br />
qu’elle aurait été conçue, comme le veut le sens commun nationaliste, en vue<br />
de remettre le Québec à sa place dans la Confédération relève autant de la<br />
théorie de la conspiration que de dire qu’elle ne sert que le droit du plus fort. On<br />
confond l’effet avec la cause.<br />
Vers une nation éclatée ?<br />
<strong>La</strong> troisième interprétation fait porter son analyse sur les objectifs politiques de<br />
la <strong>Charte</strong>, soit la protection des droits et libertés des citoyennes et citoyens<br />
canadiens et le rafermissement de l’unité nationale. Alan Cairns,<br />
principalement, s’intéressera aux objectifs politiques de la <strong>Charte</strong> pour<br />
144
Les mouvements sociaux et la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits<br />
et libertés<br />
constater que « les processus politiques complexes qui en ont permis<br />
l’émergence ont fait en sorte que maints clivages et divisions internes ont été<br />
reconnus, et parfois même stimulés » (1986 : 73). Et il ajoutera :<br />
...ce qui surprend davantage, et qui révèle la politisation d’une<br />
gamme toujours plus étendue de clivages et d’identités, c’est la<br />
mesure avec laquelle la <strong>Charte</strong> complète sa reconnaissance de base de<br />
droits individuels en établissant des distinctions à l’égard d’un<br />
certain nombre de groupes particuliers, lesquels font l’objet d’une<br />
reconnaissance constitutionnelle spéciale.<br />
Cairns s’intéressera à la façon dont la <strong>Charte</strong> amorcera l’avènement d’un<br />
« mouvement social » des droits de la personne au Canada, mouvement dont<br />
l’influence risque, selon lui, de remettre en cause la réalisation de l’unité<br />
nationale. Ainsi, les mouvements sociaux seront-ils directement interpellés<br />
par les objectifs politiques de la <strong>Charte</strong> sur la question de la citoyenneté. Or, ils<br />
seront aussi, par le fait même, les premiers à être véritablement concernés par<br />
les attentes vis-à-vis l’État que la <strong>Charte</strong> contribuera à susciter chez les<br />
groupes en question. Entre autres, l’État devra participer à la mise en place de<br />
mesures visant à garantir le bien-être de certains groupes qui totalisent, par<br />
ailleurs, pratiquement 70 p. 100 de la population du pays. On intègrera de<br />
nouveaux groupes sociaux à l’État-providence, non seulement sur la base de<br />
leur situation socio-économique, mais sur celle de la reconnaissance de la<br />
nécessité de mesures spéciales visant à réparer des erreurs et à rompre avec la<br />
discrimination.<br />
Cette situation amènera Alan Cairns à conclure également que les<br />
mouvements sociaux se retrouveront dans un rapport de clients à patron par<br />
rapport à l’État (1986 : 75). Selon lui, la <strong>Charte</strong> aura contribué à l’avènement<br />
d’une plus gr<strong>and</strong>e proximité des groupes avec l’État et une plus gr<strong>and</strong>e<br />
intégration au processus bureaucratique. Devenus des professionnels de la<br />
négociation et de la consultation, les groupes s’installeront dans le rapport<br />
clients-patron au détriment de leur lien avec la communauté et ses membres.<br />
Le réseau associatif francophone est un bon exemple d’un mouvement<br />
propulsé dans la négociation et la consultation avec les gouvernements et qui,<br />
au détriment de leur base et de leur référence au développement<br />
communautaire, se muera en groupe d’intérêts. Au nom de la « participation »,<br />
les groupes auront à évaluer des lois, des projets, des programmes. Ainsi, l’État<br />
garantira le financement d’une certaine bureaucratie d’expertes et d’experts<br />
détachés de leur base et bénéficiera du fait que le rapport clients-patron<br />
contribuera à maintenir les clivages entre les groupes. En effet, chacun viendra<br />
défendre ses intérêts particuliers et non une vision commune de la nation. Nous<br />
confirmons donc les inquiétudes de Cairns.<br />
Par contre, les groupes gagneront de ne pas avoir à se justifier politiquement.<br />
Ils représentent, et cela semble suffire pour engager le dialogue avec l’État. Or,<br />
qui parle et à quel titre ou au nom de quel « nous » ? Qui parmi les<br />
organisations nationales des groupes de femmes au Canada sont les plus<br />
représentatives de la population féminine canadienne ? En quoi, les<br />
regroupements autochtones sont-ils représentatifs de leur base ? Quelle est la<br />
place du processus démocratique et de la représentation au sein des<br />
mouvements sociaux ? Ces questions semblent plus ou moins importantes. Les<br />
groupes sont, en partie, devenus des groupes d’intérêts dont on ne remet pas en<br />
cause la représentativité, car, en bout de ligne, ils confèrent une légitimité à<br />
145
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
l’État. Or, si la démocratisation de la société est inévitablement accompagnée<br />
d’une certaine bureaucratisation (Turner, 1986), ce processus ne se déroule-til<br />
pas au détriment d’une reconstruction des mouvements sociaux comme lieu<br />
de socialisation politique (Urry, 1981) ? <strong>La</strong> bureaucratie devient une forme de<br />
vie en soi, détachée de son contexte, d’où la démobilisation des groupes et<br />
l’avènement d’une oligarchie de militants professionnels. D’où aussi la<br />
vulnérabilité de ces groupes devant l’État.<br />
En résumé, largement intégrés à l’État, les mouvements sociaux semblent<br />
contraints à ne rien faire d’autre que de négocier, voire de surveiller le<br />
processus de reconnaissance de leurs droits. L’État devient un mal pour le<br />
meilleur ou pour le pire et cela risque même d’avoir une portée sur la parole<br />
politique des groupes, notamment sur leur capacité de proposer une vision<br />
commune de la nation.<br />
Citoyenneté et mouvements sociaux : une autre hypothèse<br />
Selon Alan Cairns, nous l’avons vu plus haut, le rapprochement entre l’État et<br />
la société civile vient exacerber les différences nationales et risque de porter<br />
atteinte à l’unité nationale. <strong>La</strong> <strong>Charte</strong> aurait contribué à politiser différentes<br />
formes d’identité constitutives du tissu social canadien, mais peu de groupes<br />
seraient en mesure de donner un contenu universel à leur situation particulière.<br />
« Du point de vue de la démocratie, affirme-t-il, le problème est le suivant : la<br />
politisation des divisions sociales, jointe à la multiplication des<br />
différentiations typiques de la société moderne, érode notre identité de<br />
citoyens préoccupés par la totalité de la société » (1986 : 92). Bref, la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
entraînerait une sorte de balkanisation des spécificités sociales.<br />
Par ailleurs, Cairns (1992) reconnaît que l’on ne peut plus négliger les intérêts<br />
des nouveaux « citoyens de la <strong>Charte</strong> », — le cas des francophones hors du<br />
Québec qui insistent sur le fait qu’ils ont des intérêts divergents d’avec ceux du<br />
Québec est ici pertinent. Quoiqu’il en soit, on voit mal pourquoi cette situation<br />
empêcherait les mouvements sociaux de se projeter politiquement dans une<br />
nouvelle définition de la citoyenneté ? <strong>La</strong> sociologie des mouvements sociaux<br />
n’a-t-elle pas réussi à démontrer qu’ils constituent des espaces de<br />
rassemblement (Melucci, 1983), de discussion et de politisation (Keane, 1988;<br />
<strong>La</strong>clau et Mouffe, 1985) et non pas de simples extensions des gouvernements<br />
? Aussi ne faudrait-il pas voir comment cette dimension de leur réalité est ou<br />
n’est pas (ou n’est plus) à l’oeuvre dans le rapport des groupes à l’espace<br />
politique. C’est ici que s’impose aussi une autre réflexion sur l’État et le droit<br />
pour approfondir l’analyse des mouvements sociaux comme actrices, acteurs<br />
constitutionnels participant, à ce titre, au débat politique sur la citoyenneté au<br />
lieu de jouer un rôle plus passif au niveau du processus d’institutionnalisation<br />
de leurs revendications. Notre hypothèse est que le droit a fait avancer la cause<br />
des groupes et, contrairement aux hypothèses de l’américanisation de la<br />
société et de la difficulté du « nation-building », que les mouvements sociaux<br />
contribuent plutôt à un renouvellement du débat sur la citoyenneté. À titre<br />
d’exemple, le droit de gestion scolaire accordé aux francophones vivant en<br />
milieu minoritaire a permis de faire passer l’importance de la culture dans le<br />
droit (Bastarache, 1986). Aussi, les interventions du Women’s Legal <strong>and</strong><br />
Education Action Fund ont permis d’exposer les inégalités entre les hommes et<br />
les femmes dans les jugements des différents tribunaux (Razack, 1992).<br />
Grâce à la fonction de socialisation politique des mouvements sociaux, nous<br />
assistons en vérité à l’avènement d’un discours sociologique dans le droit qui<br />
146
Les mouvements sociaux et la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits<br />
et libertés<br />
force la reconnaissance de réalités collectives et montre que tous les groupes<br />
n’ont pas également accès à la citoyenneté. Ce discours met à nu le pouvoir de<br />
domination d’un groupe sur l’autre sans pour autant tomber dans<br />
l’essentialisme ou le génétique. Concurremment, le droit oblige la<br />
communauté ou le groupe à se départir de ses fondements historicogénétiques,<br />
donc à dénaturaliser le social. Rappelons-le, le droit, nous dit<br />
Thériault, « libère l’individu des pesanteurs du social » (1990 : 141); il lui<br />
permet d’entretenir une relation légale et non plus seulement organique avec le<br />
monde. Ainsi, les groupes deviennent des représentants de catégories<br />
politiques et de sujets agissant au sein de l’espace public. Même s’ils sont aussi<br />
toujours un peu l’« autre », ces sujets s’affirment puisqu’ils résistent à la<br />
totalisation17. Les mouvements sociaux participent à la construction d’un<br />
« nous » articulé autour d’un principe d’équivalents démocratiques, c’est-àdire<br />
d’un principe qui reconnaît l’égalité de chaque élément. Chantal Mouffe<br />
(1992), à qui nous empruntons l’expression d’équivalents démocratiques<br />
définit celui-ci comme « un principe d’articulation qui touche l’agent dans ses<br />
différentes situations de sujet en même temps qu’il lui permettrait une pluralité<br />
d’allégeance particulière et la liberté individuelle18. » À travers ce principe,<br />
une nouvelle vision « commune » de la citoyenneté respecterait la pluralité des<br />
groupes et des individus. Il n’y aurait donc plus d’identité qui dominerait<br />
l’ensemble des identités.<br />
Nous n’avons pas le choix, semble-t-il. Pour contrer ce que Cairns appelle une<br />
balkanisation des particularismes sociaux encouragée par l’État, il faut<br />
repenser la citoyenneté commune à partir de ce nouveau langage de<br />
« l’équivalence démocratique ». Autrement dit, si la citoyenneté sert à traduire<br />
notre appartenance à la société politique canadienne, elle devra s’articuler<br />
autour d’une nouvelle définition de l’égalité, qui doit se fonder sur une<br />
reconnaissance des groupes. Et si l’État exerce un certain contrôle sur les<br />
groupes par le truchement du processus de négociation et de bureaucratisation,<br />
rien n’indique qu’il puisse orienter de façon décisive le débat sur la<br />
citoyenneté.<br />
En somme, à notre avis, la <strong>Charte</strong> donne enfin la possibilité aux Canadiennes<br />
et aux Canadiens de se retrouver autour d’un ensemble de valeurs communes<br />
redéfinissant la problématique de l’égalité sans pour autant tomber dans<br />
l’essentialisme et le génétisme ni entraîner l’américanisation de la société. Ce<br />
discours, les mouvements sociaux en sont les principaux porte-parole, et la<br />
légitimité qu’ils ont gagnée depuis 1982 leur permet de l’exprimer sur la scène<br />
politique. Certes, il est simultanément restreint par le jeu politique et<br />
l’omniprésence de l’État dans la gestion de leurs droits, ce qui montre à quel<br />
point le changement est un processus complexe qui n’est pas régi par la seule<br />
volonté des groupes ou de l’État.<br />
Ainsi, l’analyse du versant proprement politique de la <strong>Charte</strong> nous oblige à<br />
relativiser ou à contextualiser davantage la capacité des mouvements à<br />
participer au changement sans pour autant tomber dans le volontarisme des<br />
acteurs ou le déterminisme des structures. <strong>La</strong> sociologie des mouvements<br />
sociaux a tout à gagner d’un passage par l’analyse du politique. Or, des<br />
analyses de la <strong>Charte</strong> que nous proposent les Cairns, M<strong>and</strong>el, etc., aucune ne<br />
nous permet de voir comment la <strong>Charte</strong> est porteuse d’avenir pour la société<br />
canadienne. Le pessimisme aurait-il plus de crédibilité que l’optimisme, ou<br />
est-ce justement la frontière entre la sociologie et la politique qui fait que les<br />
uns s’occupent trop de la volonté des acteurs et les autres, des forces<br />
incontrôlables ? En fait, c’est à une étude du jeu d’équilibre entre le juridique et<br />
147
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
le politique, les mouvements sociaux et l’État, la socialisation et la<br />
bureaucratisation que nous sommes aujourd’hui conviés. Alors que le contexte<br />
politique participe à la structuration de l’action des groupes, l’étude du jeu<br />
d’équilibre entre l’État et le droit permettrait de voir si les acteurs peuvent<br />
jouer un rôle dans le débat sur la citoyenneté.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Nous avons tenté dans ce texte de passer en revue les différentes<br />
interprétations de la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits et libertés pour déterminer<br />
leur apport à l’analyse des mouvements sociaux actuels, nous arrêtant à<br />
chacune d’elles. Ainsi, nous avons commenté les thèmes de la judiciarisation<br />
de la société, de son américanisation, de la prédominance des droits<br />
individuels et de l’éclatement d’une vision commune de la nation. Notre<br />
analyse critique nous a aussi conduite à une autre interprétation de la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
selon laquelle la question des droits collectifs pouvait nous porter à repenser<br />
favorablement la question de la citoyenneté.<br />
Quant à la sociologie des mouvements sociaux, elle acquiert, de ce passage par<br />
l’analyse politique, une approche dynamique et complexe de la place du<br />
politique, notamment de l’État et du droit, dans la structuration de l’action.<br />
Elle doit s’ouvrir au droit qui s’ajoute aux modes d’action des groupes et leur<br />
donne une relative efficacité malgré l’omniprésence de l’État. <strong>La</strong> sociologie<br />
des mouvements sociaux doit aussi examiner davantage la question de<br />
l’égalité dans ses rapports avec la citoyenneté : elle a tout à gagner en<br />
reconnaissant que les mouvements vivent à l’heure des droits et des choix,<br />
bref, qu’ils ont eux aussi droit à une certaine légèreté de l’être !<br />
Notes<br />
* Une première version de ce texte a été présentée en 1991, à Madrid, au colloque « Le Canada,<br />
un défi ». Nous tenons à remercier Anne-Andrée Denault, Carole Dion, Martine Perrault,<br />
Marie-Blanche Tahon ainsi que les évaluateurs anonymes pour leurs commentaires et<br />
suggestions de révisions. Nous remercions aussi Danielle Juteau pour ses précieux conseils.<br />
Cet article a pu être rédigé grâce à une subvention du <strong>Conseil</strong> de recherche en sciences<br />
humaines du Canada.<br />
1. Un des évaluateurs de ce texte nous a fait remarquer qu’une analyse de la littérature portant<br />
sur les mouvements sociaux dans d’autres pays « pourrait peut-être laisser entrevoir que ce<br />
qu’on impute à la <strong>Charte</strong> sont des phénomènes très semblables à ce qu’on retrouve ailleurs. »<br />
On pourrait aussi poser la question autrement et dem<strong>and</strong>er pourquoi, au Canada, il a fallu<br />
l’avènement de la <strong>Charte</strong> pour que l’on assiste à certains changements, certes en marche<br />
avant 1982, alors que dans d’autres pays, les mouvements sociaux n’ont pas eu besoin<br />
d’invoquer un tel document pour faire avancer leur cause ? Une sociologie comparée des<br />
trajectoires des mouvements sociaux dans des pays qui possèdent une <strong>Charte</strong> et d’autres qui<br />
n’en ont pas permettrait de vérifier cette hypothèse. Malheureusement, nous ne pouvons pas<br />
nous consacrer à cette question dans ce texte.<br />
2. En anglais, le terme legalization traduit bien l’idée selon laquelle le politique est soumis au<br />
juridique. En français, nous utiliserons le néologisme « judiciarisation » pour exprimer la<br />
même chose.<br />
3. Claude Lefort, dans L’invention démocratique (1981), propose une réflexion des plus<br />
pertinentes sur la question, sauf qu’elle n’a pas vraiment réussi à trouver sa place dans les<br />
analyses sur les mouvements sociaux.<br />
4. À titre d’exemple, en 1968, le gouvernement fédéral mettait sur pied un programme au sein<br />
du Secrétariat d’État en vue de contribuer au développement des communautés<br />
francophones vivant en milieu minoritaire. À la même époque, le ministère de l’Emploi et de<br />
l’Immigration implantait des programmes devant contribuer au développement<br />
communautaire. Les groupes sociaux ont fortement bénéficié de ces programmes. Nous<br />
148
Les mouvements sociaux et la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits<br />
et libertés<br />
pensons ici aux groupes de femmes qui ont réussi par ce moyen à embaucher des animatrices<br />
sociales qui les ont aidées à s’organiser, à faire du recrutement et à se mobiliser. Ces<br />
quelques exemples montrent que l’État n’était pas qu’au service de ses propres intérêts<br />
« absolutistes ». Il a contribué à la mobilisation des groupes au sein de la société civile. Qu’il<br />
ait récupéré les groupes comme le veut le sens commun est une autre question qu’il ne faut<br />
pas négliger. Mais alors que le sens commun veut que la question de la récupération ou de<br />
l’intégration soit perçue comme la cause ultime de l’engagement étatique dans le<br />
changement social, la sociologie des mouvements sociaux devrait proposer une analyse plus<br />
dynamique qui articule le rapport État-société dans toute sa complexité.<br />
5. Nous n’avons qu’à penser à la façon dont la Commission royale d’enquête sur le bilinguisme<br />
et le biculturalisme au Canada (Commission <strong>La</strong>urendeau-Dunton, 1963) a mobilisé la<br />
population canadienne de même que la Commission royale d’enquête sur le statut de la<br />
femme au Canada (Commission Bird, 1971), pour prendre conscience du rôle important joué<br />
par les gouvernements dans le développement des mouvements. Il est maintenant courant de<br />
voir les théoriciennes du mouvement des femmes se rapporter à la Commission Bird comme<br />
catalyseur du féminisme au Canada. Voir notamment Jeri Wine et Janice Ristock (1991).<br />
6. On pourrait objecter qu’une sociologie des groupes d’intérêts réalise déjà ce type d’analyse.<br />
En réalité, une telle sociologie ne s’intéresse pas au développement de l’action mais à la<br />
capacité d’influence de certains groupes sur le processus de formulation des politiques ou de<br />
l’opinion publique. À l’opposé, une sociologie qui analysera le développement de l’action<br />
devra plutôt faire apparaître la situation qui contribue à l’action et voir comment les groupes<br />
sont différemment situés et motivés politiquement. Elle devra s’intéresser au déroulement<br />
de l’action et voir si les résultats sont ce que les groupes escomptaient.<br />
7. L’article 15 (2) se lit comme suit :<br />
Le paragraphe (1) n’a pas pour effet d’interdire les lois, programmes ou activités destinés à<br />
améliorer la situation d’individus ou de groupes défavorisés, notamment du fait de leur race,<br />
de leur origine nationale ou ethnique, de leur couleur, de leur religion, de leur sexe, de leur<br />
âge ou de leurs déficiences mentales ou physiques.<br />
8. Cette disposition a été incluse à la suite d’une campagne intensive de démarchage politique<br />
de la part des groupes de femmes auprès du gouvernement et des partis politiques. Cette<br />
revendication faisait partie d’un ensemble de garanties que les féministes n’ont pas pu<br />
décrocher, notamment la garantie à«laliberté de reproduction » ainsi que la protection<br />
contre toute discrimination fondée sur le statut marital et l’orientation sexuelle (Hosek,<br />
1983).<br />
9. Pour plus de détails, voir l’étude du groupe LEAF par Sherene Razack dans Canadian<br />
Feminism <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>La</strong>w. <strong>The</strong> Women’s Legal Education <strong>and</strong> Action Fund <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pursuit of<br />
Equality. Toronto, Second Story Press.<br />
10. Pour plus de détails, voir l’ouvrage de Janine Brodie, Shelley A.M. Gavigan et Jane Jenson,<br />
<strong>The</strong> Politics of Abortion, Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1992.<br />
11. Le phénomène de différentiation sociale a été largement étudié par Talcott Parsons, Le<br />
système des sociétés modernes, Paris, Dunod, 1973. Il a vu ce mouvement bien en place dans<br />
le système américain, système qui était, selon lui, le plus moderne. Il accorde une place<br />
centrale à l’individu et fonctionne de façon autonome selon le mode du pluralisme social et le<br />
développement de sphères précises de compétence : juridique, politique, sociale,<br />
économique, culturelle. D’où l’équation entre États-Unis et modernité, bien que ce<br />
phénomène se pose pour l’ensemble des systèmes sociaux qui épousent ce mode de<br />
fonctionnement. D’où aussi l’idée selon laquelle la société canadienne s’américaniserait<br />
continuellement.<br />
12. Voir aussi, sur cette même question, J.-Yvon Thériault dans « Individualisme, nationalisme<br />
et universalisme : l’affaire Durham », communication présentée au colloque Québec-Brésil,<br />
à Montréal, 1991.<br />
13. Voir Marie (1988 : 195) :<br />
Si l’on peut éventuellement parler « de droits individuels », c’est seulement en raison de<br />
« l’individualité » qui caractérise le sujet des droits de l’homme, et non parce que ceux-ci se<br />
trouveraient restreints à une sphère imaginée comme un vase clos où l’individu évoluerait<br />
dans un superbe isolement... Au sens strict, il n’existe sans doute pas plus de « droits<br />
individuels » qu’il n’existe de « droits collectifs » en matière de droits de l’homme, ou plutôt<br />
149
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
tous les droits sont « individuels » par leur titulaire et tous sont « collectifs » par leur<br />
processus de reconnaissance, leur mode d’exercice et leur méthode de protection.<br />
14. Pour plus détails, voir Danielle Juteau, « Visions partielles, visions partiales : visions (des)<br />
minoritaires en sociologie », Sociologie et sociétés, vol. XIII, n o 2, 1981, 33-49.<br />
15. Sur cette question, nous rejoignons Yvon Thériault dans « Individualisme, nationalisme et<br />
universalisme », op. cit.<br />
16. L’entente constitutionnelle de Charlottetown, rejetée par la population canadienne le 26<br />
octobre 1992, montre à nouveau la réalité de cette incompatibilité de vision entre le Canada<br />
qui revendique l’égalité des provinces et le Québec qui se reconnaît comme le pôle central<br />
d’affirmation de l’existence politique d’une société particulière francophone.<br />
17. Pour Hannah Arendt, le sujet est aussi un paria soit, « l’irréductible, le non assimilable,<br />
l’anti-conformiste, celui dont l’étrangeté résiste à l’anonymat du social » (Colin, 1986 : 60).<br />
En tant que paria (Arendt était juive), le sujet ne peut que s’affirmer comme autre (58);<br />
« sujet qui s’il n’est pas auteur de ses actes n’en est pas moins l’agent, ou l’acteur » (58).<br />
18. Notre traduction de:«Itisanarticulating principle that affects <strong>the</strong> different subject positions<br />
of <strong>the</strong> social agent while allowing for a plurality of specific allegiances <strong>and</strong> for <strong>the</strong> respect of<br />
individual liberty » (1992 : 32). Cette idée rappelle aussi les réflexions de Georges Gurvitch<br />
sur le pluralisme juridique dans Déclaration des droits sociaux, 1944.<br />
Bibliographie<br />
Adamson, Nancy, Linda Briskin et Margaret McPhail. Feminist Organizing for Change. <strong>The</strong><br />
Contemporary Women’s Movement in Canada. Toronto : Oxford University Press, 1988.<br />
Arendt, Hannah. Condition de l’homme moderne. Paris : Calmann-Lévy, 1961.<br />
Bastarache, Michel. Les droits linguistiques au Canada. Montréal : Éditions Yvon Blais, 1986.<br />
Bourque, Gilles. « <strong>La</strong> sociologie, l’État, la nation », Cahiers de recherche sociologique, n o 14,<br />
1990.<br />
Brodie, Janine, Shelley A.M. Gavigan et Jane Jenson. <strong>The</strong> Politics of Abortion. Toronto : Oxford<br />
University Press, 1992.<br />
Brodsky, Gwen et Shelagh Day. <strong>La</strong> <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne et les droits des femmes, progrès ou recul?<br />
Ottawa : <strong>Conseil</strong> consultatif canadien sur la situation de la femme, 1989.<br />
Cairns, Alan C. « L’État omniprésent : les relations entre l’État et la société au Canada » dans Keith<br />
Banting, L’État et la société : le Canada dans une optique comparative. Ottawa : ministère<br />
des Approvisionnements et Services, 1986.<br />
________. <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> versus <strong>Federalism</strong>. <strong>The</strong> Dilemmas of <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform. Montréal et<br />
Kingston : McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992.<br />
Castoriadis, Cornélius. L’institution imaginaire de la société. Paris : Seuil, 1975.<br />
________. Le contenu du socialisme. Paris : Éditions Générales, 1979.<br />
Colin, Françoise. « Du privé et du public », Les cahiers du GRIF, n o 33, 1986.<br />
Ferry, Luc et Alain Renaut. <strong>La</strong> pensée 68. Paris : Gallimard, 1986.<br />
Fudge, Judy. « <strong>The</strong> Public\Private Distinction: <strong>The</strong> Limits of <strong>the</strong> Use of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Litigation To<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r Feminist Struggles », Osgoode Hall <strong>La</strong>w Journal, n o 25, 1987.<br />
Gagnon, Gabriel et Marcel Rioux. À propos d’autogestion et d’émancipation. Québec : IQRC,<br />
1988.<br />
Gotell, Lise. <strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement, Equality Rights <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Ottawa :<br />
ICREF, 1990.<br />
Gurvitch, Georges. Déclaration des droits sociaux. Paris : Éditions de la Maison Française, 1944.<br />
Hégédus, Zsuzsa. « Social Movements <strong>and</strong> Social Change in Self-Creative Society: New Civil<br />
Initiatives in <strong>the</strong> International Arena », International Sociology. vol. 4, n o 1, 1989.<br />
Juteau, Danielle. « Visions partielles, visions partiales : visions (des) minoritaires en sociologie »,<br />
Sociologie et Sociétés, vol. XIII, n o 2, 1981.<br />
Keane, John. Civil Society <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> State. London : Verso, 1988.<br />
Knopff, Rainer et F.L. Morton. <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Politics. Scarborough : Nelson Canada, 1992.<br />
________. « Le développement national et la <strong>Charte</strong> » dans Alain C. Cairns et Cynthia Williams,<br />
Le constitutionnalisme, la citoyenneté et la société au Canada. Ottawa :<br />
Approvisionnements et Services, 1986.<br />
<strong>La</strong>clau, Ernesto et Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony <strong>and</strong> Socialist Strategy. London : Verso, 1985.<br />
Magnusson, Warren. « Critical Social Movements: Decentering <strong>the</strong> State » dans Alain G. Gagnon<br />
et James Bickerton, Canadian Politics. Peterborough : Broadview Press, 1990.<br />
Maheu, Louis. « Les mouvements de base et la lutte contre l’appropriation étatique du tissu<br />
social », Sociologie et Sociétés, vol. 15, n o 1, 1983.<br />
________. « Mouvements sociaux et politiques. Les enjeux d’une articulation entre gr<strong>and</strong>es<br />
problématiques du politique » dans Gérard Boismenu, Pierre Hamel et Georges <strong>La</strong>bica, Les<br />
150
Les mouvements sociaux et la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits<br />
et libertés<br />
formes modernes de la démocratie. Montréal/Paris : L’Harmattan/Les Presses de<br />
l’Université de Montréal, 1992.<br />
M<strong>and</strong>el, Michael. <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Legalization of Politics in Canada. Toronto :<br />
Wall & Thompson Inc, 1989.<br />
Marie, Jean-Bernard. « Relations entre droits des peuples et droits de l’homme : distinctions<br />
sémantiques et méthodologiques », L’annuaire canadien des droits de la personne. Ottawa,<br />
Université d’Ottawa, n o 5, 1988.<br />
Melucci, Alberto. « Mouvements sociaux, mouvements post-politiques », Revue internationale<br />
d’action communautaire, 10/50, 1983.<br />
Morton, F.L. « <strong>The</strong> Political Impact of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedom », Canadian<br />
Journal of Political Science, 20 : 31, 1987.<br />
Mouffe, Chantal. « Citizenship <strong>and</strong> Political Identity », October, n o 61, 1992.<br />
Ng, Roxana, Gillian Walker et Jacob Muller (éd.). Community Organization <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
State. Toronto : Garamond Press, 1990.<br />
Parsons, Talcott. Le système des sociétés modernes. Paris : Dunod, 1973.<br />
Pentney, William F. « Les principes généraux d’interprétation de la <strong>Charte</strong> » dans <strong>Charte</strong><br />
canadienne des droits et libertés, 2 e édition (sous la dir. de Beaudoin et Ratushny).<br />
Montréal : Wilson et <strong>La</strong>fleur ltée, 1989.<br />
Programme de constestation judiciaire. Rapport annuel. Ottawa, 1991.<br />
Razack, Sherene. Canadian Feminism <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>La</strong>w. <strong>The</strong> Women’s Legal Education <strong>and</strong> Action<br />
Fund <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pursuit of Equality. Toronto : Second Story Press, 1991.<br />
Russell, Peter H. Leading <strong>Constitution</strong>al Decisions,3 e édition. Ottawa, Carleton University Press,<br />
1982.<br />
________. « <strong>The</strong> Political Purposes of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms », Canadian<br />
Bar Review, 61 : 30, 1983.<br />
Skocpol, <strong>The</strong>da. États et révolutions sociales. Paris : Fayard, 1985.<br />
Taylor, Charles. « Des avenirs possibles : la légitimité, l’identité et l’aliénation au Canada à la fin<br />
du XX e siècle » dans Le constitutionnalisme, la citoyenneté et la société au Canada (sous la<br />
dir. de A. Cairns et C. Williams). Ottawa : ministère des Approvisionnements et Services,<br />
1986.<br />
Thériault, J.-Yvon. « Individualisme, nationalisme et universalisme : l’affaire Durham »,<br />
communication présentée dans le cadre du colloque Québec-Brésil, UQAM, 1991.<br />
________. « Lourdeur et légèreté du devenir de la francophonie hors Québec », 1990.<br />
________. « Pays réel, pays légal : le fait minoritaire entre la communauté et le droit »,<br />
communication présentée dans le cadre du colloque annuel de l’ACSALF, Université de<br />
Moncton, 1988.<br />
________. « Mouvements sociaux et nouvelle culture politique », Politique, vol. 12, 1987.<br />
Touraine, Alain. <strong>La</strong> production de la société. Paris : Seuil, 1974.<br />
________. Le retour de l’acteur. Paris : Fayard, 1984.<br />
Touraine, Alain, François Dubet, Zsuzsa Hégédus et Michel Wieviorka. Lutte étudiante. Paris :<br />
Seuil, 1978.<br />
________. <strong>La</strong> prophétie anti-nucléaire. Paris : Seuil, 1980.<br />
________. Le Pays contre l’État. Paris : Seuil, 1981.<br />
Turner, Brian. Citizenship <strong>and</strong> Capitalism. <strong>The</strong> Debate Over Reformism. London : Allen &<br />
Unwin, 1986.<br />
Urry, John. <strong>The</strong> Anatomy of Capitalist Societies. <strong>The</strong> Economy, Civil Society <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> State. New<br />
Jersey, Humanities Press, 1981.<br />
V<strong>and</strong>ycke, Robert. « <strong>La</strong> <strong>Charte</strong> constitutionnelle et les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels »,<br />
L’annuaire canadien des droits de la personne. Ottawa : Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa,<br />
1990.<br />
Wieviorka, Michel. L’espace du racisme. Paris : Seuil, 1991.<br />
Wine, Jeri et Janice Ristock. Women <strong>and</strong> Social Change. Feminist Activism in Canada. Toronto,<br />
James Lorimer, 1991.<br />
151
Andrew D. Heard<br />
Québec Courts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of<br />
Rights *<br />
Abstract<br />
Many Québécois initially viewed <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights with<br />
hostility, since it was part of <strong>the</strong> 1982 <strong>Constitution</strong> Act enacted over <strong>the</strong><br />
objections of <strong>the</strong> Québec government <strong>and</strong> legislature. This paper studies <strong>the</strong><br />
subsequent treatment of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in <strong>the</strong> reported decisions of<br />
Québec’s Appeal Court <strong>and</strong> Superior Court in order to examine whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
Québécois have treated <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in any manner remarkably different than<br />
that found in o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions. <strong>The</strong> results demonstrate that Québec litigants<br />
have frequently relied on <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> reception given<br />
to it by Québec judges falls within comparable patterns seen elsewhere.<br />
Résumé<br />
À l’origine, nombre de Québécois furent hostiles à la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des<br />
droits et libertés parce qu’elle faisait partie intégrante de la Loi<br />
constitutionnelle de 1982, promulguée en dépit des objections du<br />
gouvernement et de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec. Cet article examine les<br />
décisions publiées qui ont été rendues par la Cour d’appel et la Cour<br />
supérieure de la province dans des causes s’appuyant sur la <strong>Charte</strong>, afin de<br />
déterminer si les Québécois se sont comportés en cette matière d’une façon<br />
nettement différente des autres juridictions. Les résultats indiquent qu’au<br />
Québec, les plaideurs ont fréquemment invoqué la <strong>Charte</strong> et que les décisions<br />
judiciaires correspondent grosso modo à celles qui ont été prises par les<br />
autres tribunaux canadiens.<br />
While <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms is intended as a national<br />
rights document, it came into force without <strong>the</strong> consent of <strong>the</strong> Québec<br />
government, legislature or people. Indeed, <strong>the</strong> Québec legislature objected to<br />
<strong>the</strong> 1981 federal-provincial accord that led to <strong>the</strong> 1982 Canada Act, through<br />
which <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> came into being. 1 Once <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> took effect, <strong>the</strong> Parti<br />
Québécois quickly ushered a bill through <strong>the</strong> National Assembly that inserted<br />
a clause into all provincial legislation exploiting <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />
clause to <strong>the</strong> full. Every existing statute was declared to operate independently<br />
of Sections 2 <strong>and</strong> 7 through 15 of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>; a similar provision was later<br />
added to each new bill introduced prior to <strong>the</strong> 1985 election. 2 <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> was<br />
seen by many in Québec as an unwanted development foisted upon <strong>the</strong>m by<br />
English Canada.<br />
With this hostile genesis in mind, an examination is long overdue of <strong>the</strong><br />
subsequent treatment by <strong>the</strong> Québécois of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights.<br />
One might suspect that <strong>the</strong> citizens of Québec would turn <strong>the</strong>ir backs on this<br />
piece of “legal imperialism” from English Canada, or that Québec judges <strong>and</strong><br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
lawyers would try to develop a distinctive Québécois jurisprudence whenever<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> was raised. After all, much has been made in many<br />
contexts of <strong>the</strong> fact that Québec operates under its own Code civil <strong>and</strong> that its<br />
traditional values purport to favour collective over individual interests. <strong>The</strong><br />
fear of an antagonistic treatment of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has fuelled much of <strong>the</strong><br />
animosity towards a “distinct society” clause outside Québec since <strong>the</strong> 1987<br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord.<br />
<strong>The</strong> aim of this study is to provide an insight into how <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of<br />
Rights has fared in Québec through an empirical analysis of <strong>the</strong> reported<br />
judgments delivered by <strong>the</strong> Québec Court of Appeal <strong>and</strong> Superior Court<br />
between 1982 <strong>and</strong> 1989. To gain some appreciation of how <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has been employed in Québec, a variety of issues need to be explored.<br />
A broad view of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s use emerges from examining who has resorted to<br />
it <strong>and</strong> which particular rights have been raised. However, <strong>the</strong> best insight into<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s reception in Québec is revealed by <strong>the</strong> way in which<br />
Québec judges have dealt with <strong>the</strong>se claims. <strong>The</strong> use made of precedents from<br />
outside <strong>the</strong> province gives an indication of <strong>the</strong> acceptance of <strong>the</strong> national<br />
values that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> supposedly embodies. <strong>The</strong> interplay between <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> Québec’s own <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Human Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms<br />
may also reveal <strong>the</strong> extent to which <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s interpretation in<br />
Québec is rooted in <strong>the</strong> province’s distinctive legal culture.<br />
While <strong>the</strong> focus of this paper remains Québec, references will be made where<br />
possible to research on approaches to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions. A<br />
previously compiled identical data set for Nova Scotia will be used to make<br />
many comparisons between <strong>the</strong>se two provinces. 3 <strong>The</strong> Québec experience<br />
will also be compared to <strong>the</strong> results of o<strong>the</strong>r studies on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in<br />
Saskatchewan, <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court of Canada <strong>and</strong> Ontario, as well as one paper<br />
based on national data. 4 This comparative perspective is crucial to<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>the</strong> significance of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s particular treatment in Québec.<br />
<strong>The</strong> manner in which <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has already been dealt with in<br />
Québec has an important bearing on current constitutional disputes. Much<br />
public debate has raged over whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> force of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would<br />
in some way be diminished if references to Québec’s distinct society were<br />
included in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>. Although uncertainties about future<br />
interpretations cannot be dispelled, evaluations of <strong>the</strong> impact of a distinct society<br />
clause should be based upon an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of how distinctively <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has already been treated in Québec.<br />
Data Collection<br />
<strong>The</strong> data for this study were collected from 216 Appeal <strong>and</strong> Superior Court<br />
judgments published in two sources, <strong>the</strong> Québec Appeal Cases <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Recueil<br />
de jurisprudence du Québec, all delivered by <strong>the</strong> end of 1989. 5 Data for a<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r 49 unreported Superior Court judgments were compiled from <strong>the</strong><br />
reported decisions of <strong>the</strong>ir later appeals.<br />
A reliance upon published judgements poses particular problems for empirical<br />
research such as this, since only a subset of all judgments end up in print. A far<br />
smaller portion of Québec court decisions is published in comparison with<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions, presumably because of <strong>the</strong> smaller market for <strong>the</strong>se<br />
expensive volumes. Most substantive Appeal Court judgments are published,<br />
but only a selection of trial decisions are reported. <strong>The</strong> inferential reliability of<br />
generalizing trends in Québec courtrooms from <strong>the</strong> sample used here depends<br />
154
Québec Courts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
upon all cases having a relatively equal chance of being reported; this is<br />
believed to be <strong>the</strong> case with <strong>the</strong> present sample set. <strong>The</strong> Société québécoise<br />
d’information juridique receives <strong>and</strong> reviews copies of all Superior Court<br />
judgments, <strong>and</strong> publishes those considered to be <strong>the</strong> most important. Although<br />
not ideal from a methodological viewpoint, this selection process does ensure<br />
that all judgments have had a chance to be included in <strong>the</strong> data set. Since <strong>the</strong><br />
reported cases form <strong>the</strong> vast majority of those cited as precedents in later cases,<br />
this data set depicts <strong>the</strong> working reality of Québec courts.<br />
This study includes any case where an attempt was made to raise a claim under<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, regardless of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> judge refused to consider <strong>the</strong> argument<br />
or decided <strong>the</strong> case on o<strong>the</strong>r grounds, since even <strong>the</strong>se cases involve a judge’s<br />
discretionary reaction to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. A case is deemed to result in a successful<br />
claim only if some remedy is granted. In a number of cases, judges find that a<br />
right has been infringed but offer no remedy—ei<strong>the</strong>r because <strong>the</strong> infringement<br />
is saved by ano<strong>the</strong>r section of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> or because <strong>the</strong> infringement is not<br />
serious enough to warrant a remedy; <strong>the</strong>se are not regarded as successful<br />
claims in this study.<br />
Players, Claims <strong>and</strong> Outcomes<br />
Despite hostile reactions by Québec’s provincial politicians to <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights, little evidence indicates that this antipathy carries over into<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s treatment in Québec courts. Québec litigants have frequently<br />
launched claims based on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, with no overt reluctance by judges to<br />
consider or allow <strong>the</strong>m. A broad cross section of Québec society has advanced<br />
claims under <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in a variety of contexts, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> overall rates of<br />
acceptance are consistent with those of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claims in o<strong>the</strong>r Canadian<br />
jurisdictions. Never<strong>the</strong>less, some variations emerge when <strong>the</strong> particular use<br />
made of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in Québec is compared to o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions.<br />
One measure of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s general acceptance among <strong>the</strong><br />
Québécois is <strong>the</strong> proportion of Québec cases that involve <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
easiest way to estimate <strong>the</strong> relative use of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is to calculate <strong>the</strong><br />
percentage of reported Appeal Court decisions involving <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong> first 30 volumes of <strong>the</strong> Québec Appeal Cases, covering mid-1986<br />
to 1989, contain 1,035 fully reported cases, 56 of which raise <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claims. 6<br />
Thus, 5.4% of <strong>the</strong> Québec Appeal Court’s workload in this period involved<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases. This is somewhat less than <strong>the</strong> 8.4% of such cases heard by <strong>the</strong><br />
Nova Scotia Appeal Court between 1986 <strong>and</strong> 1989. Given <strong>the</strong>se low<br />
percentages it is difficult to infer whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> fewer <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases heard in<br />
Québec indicate a reluctance to use <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, or whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> mix of cases<br />
reflects different procedural rules; <strong>the</strong> Nova Scotia Appeal Court was unable to<br />
refuse leave to a substantial number of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> appeals that were only minor<br />
variations of criminal cases it had already dealt with. A more difficult issue is<br />
<strong>the</strong> extent to which <strong>the</strong> blanket use of <strong>the</strong> notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing clause has reduced<br />
<strong>the</strong> number of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases in Québec. While some diminution must be<br />
attributed to this factor, a number of challenges to <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong><br />
notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing clause added to total number <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases in Québec.<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> data do not indicate that Québec litigants were strikingly<br />
hesitant to raise <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
During <strong>the</strong> period from 1982 to 1989, <strong>the</strong> judges of Québec’s two most senior<br />
courts granted some remedy in 27.5% of all cases involving claims under <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. As with o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions, <strong>the</strong> Appeal Court accepted<br />
155
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
fewer claims than did <strong>the</strong> superior trial court (24.4% <strong>and</strong> 29.1% respectively).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se rates of acceptance are quite consistent with those of o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions,<br />
as indicated by <strong>the</strong> following table of <strong>the</strong> success rates of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claims in<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r appellate courts.<br />
Table 1 7<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Success Rates<br />
Appeal Court Percentage of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Cases<br />
with Successful Claims<br />
Québec – 1982-89 24.4<br />
Nova Scotia – 1982-90 17.4<br />
Ontario – 1982-89 25.7<br />
Saskatchewan – 1982-87 19.6<br />
Supreme Court of Canada – 1982-89 31.4<br />
Thus, Québec judges do not demonstrate any greater reluctance to grant<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claims than <strong>the</strong>ir colleagues in o<strong>the</strong>r Canadian jurisdictions. Indeed,<br />
Appeal Court judges in Nova Scotia <strong>and</strong> Saskatchewan rejected far more<br />
claims than Québec Appeal Court judges.<br />
Unfortunately, <strong>the</strong> data do not permit a reliable analysis of <strong>the</strong> individual<br />
voting patterns of particular judges. O<strong>the</strong>r work has demonstrated that<br />
individual judges evolve widely differing track records in <strong>the</strong>ir acceptance of<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claims. 8 Although 90 <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> decisions of <strong>the</strong> Québec Appeal Court<br />
were reported during <strong>the</strong> period under study, <strong>the</strong> division of <strong>the</strong> sixteen-judge<br />
court into three- or five-judge panels means that too few judges have dealt<br />
singly with a sufficient number of cases to allow a detailed analysis of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
voting behaviour. However, <strong>the</strong> data indicate that Québec judges are likely to<br />
be as individualistic in <strong>the</strong>ir approach as o<strong>the</strong>r judges. For example, two of <strong>the</strong><br />
Appeal Court judges with <strong>the</strong> most <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> experience show quite different<br />
rates of claim acceptance: Valler<strong>and</strong> granted a remedy in only two of <strong>the</strong><br />
sixteen <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases he heard, while Chouinard accepted claims in seven of<br />
his seventeen cases.<br />
Significant differences of opinion among Québec Appeal Court judges emerge<br />
in <strong>the</strong> frequency with which members of a panel hearing a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> case<br />
disagreed with each o<strong>the</strong>r. <strong>The</strong> following table presents this information with<br />
comparative data from o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions.<br />
156
Table 2<br />
Québec Courts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
Rate of Agreement on <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Claims Among Panel Members<br />
in Senior Appellate Courts<br />
Percentage of<br />
Cases Decided Québec Ontario Nova Scotia Supreme Court<br />
of Canada<br />
Unanimously<br />
With Concurring<br />
51.1 92.9 94.1 48.8<br />
Opinions<br />
With Dissenting<br />
39.6 4.9 2.2 38.0<br />
Opinions 17.7 7.1 7.2 30.6<br />
Clearly, members of Québec’s Appeal Court hold significantly different views<br />
on ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> general outcome of a case or <strong>the</strong> reasons for that outcome, or at<br />
least are much more willing to express those differences than judges in Nova<br />
Scotia or Ontario. However, <strong>the</strong> behaviour of Québec Appeal Court judges is<br />
more consistent with that of Supreme Court of Canada judges; both courts<br />
have low rates of unanimity, although Québec judges dissent less frequently<br />
than Supreme Court judges. Some of <strong>the</strong> differences between Québec <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Nova Scotia or Ontario appeal courts may relate to institutional traditions.<br />
Until <strong>the</strong> mid-1980s, all judges who sat on Québec Appeal Court panels<br />
consistently delivered <strong>the</strong>ir own opinions, even if only a few brief paragraphs<br />
to say <strong>the</strong>y agreed with one or both of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r opinions. Since <strong>the</strong>n, Québec<br />
judges have followed closer in line with <strong>the</strong>ir common law counterparts, with<br />
<strong>the</strong> more regular delivery of a single opinion for <strong>the</strong> panel or <strong>the</strong> majority.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Québec cases studied, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> was raised by individuals in 73.6% of<br />
cases; <strong>and</strong> by corporations, unions <strong>and</strong> media groups in 21.1% of cases. This<br />
indicates a much broader use of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> than in Nova Scotia, where<br />
individuals accounted for 94% of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claimants compared to only 5%<br />
involving unions, media or o<strong>the</strong>r corporations. 9 Part of this discrepancy may<br />
relate to <strong>the</strong> presence of many more corporate head offices in Québec than<br />
Nova Scotia, as well as <strong>the</strong> relative prosperity of Québec companies <strong>and</strong><br />
unions; one would expect that Ontario might exhibit a pattern closer to<br />
Québec’s than Nova Scotia’s.<br />
One important finding relates to <strong>the</strong> infrequent permission to participate<br />
granted to intervenors by Québec judges. In only 3% of Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases<br />
were ei<strong>the</strong>r individuals or groups allowed to participate as intervenors, which<br />
is similar to Nova Scotia’s record of 2.2% of cases with private intervenors.<br />
This low participation rate is largely due to <strong>the</strong> very restrictive rules governing<br />
permission to intervene that discourage such participation. 10 <strong>The</strong> closed<br />
nature of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> litigation has important policy implications, since <strong>the</strong> courts<br />
hear only from a very small number of interested parties before reaching <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
decisions. This contrasts with <strong>the</strong> parade of groups <strong>and</strong> individuals who testify<br />
before legislative committees examining policy issues that may later be<br />
challenged in court. <strong>The</strong> situation in Québec <strong>and</strong> Nova Scotia appears to differ<br />
somewhat from <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court of Canada, where a higher proportion of<br />
157
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
hearings (6.6%) involve submissions by private intervenors. It is quite<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>able that interest groups would participate in a larger number of<br />
Supreme Court cases, since <strong>the</strong> high costs of preparing <strong>and</strong> arguing a case<br />
likely encourage groups with scarce resources to concentrate on <strong>the</strong> most<br />
important hearings by <strong>the</strong> nation’s top court.<br />
As with o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is most likely to be referred to in<br />
Québec by parties facing prosecution for federal or provincial offenses; 57.7%<br />
of <strong>the</strong> cases studied were criminal cases. However, this figure is significantly<br />
lower than <strong>the</strong> 80.9% of Nova Scotia’s 1982 to 1990 cases that involved<br />
criminal charges, 80% in Saskatchewan from 1982 to 1987, <strong>and</strong> 77% which<br />
Morton <strong>and</strong> Wi<strong>the</strong>y found nationally between 1982 <strong>and</strong> 1985. 11 <strong>The</strong> lower<br />
proportion of criminal cases in Québec appears to reflect <strong>the</strong> greater use made<br />
of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> by <strong>the</strong> Québec media <strong>and</strong> trade unions, who rarely were charged<br />
with offenses.<br />
Québec has displayed a distinctive pattern in its relative use of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> for<br />
different types of rights. Table 3 indicates that Québec litigants raised fewer<br />
claims under <strong>the</strong> legal rights of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> than did Nova Scotians,<br />
considerably more fundamental rights claims, <strong>and</strong> fewer claims for equality;<br />
nei<strong>the</strong>r province saw many claims under <strong>the</strong> sections involving language<br />
education rights.<br />
Table Three 12<br />
Type of Right Claimed Jurisdiction<br />
Québec Nova Scotia<br />
Fundamental 13.6 5.5<br />
Mobility 4.5 2.5<br />
Legal 70.7 75.7<br />
Equality 9.3 14.3<br />
<strong>La</strong>nguage Education<br />
Percentage of all claims in s96 (1982-89)<br />
1.9 1.9<br />
<strong>The</strong> greater emphasis on fundamental freedoms in Québec appears to arise<br />
from <strong>the</strong> larger overall involvement of corporations, <strong>the</strong> media <strong>and</strong> trade<br />
unions. <strong>The</strong>se litigants accounted for 55% of Québec cases in which<br />
fundamental freedoms were raised, compared to only 11% of such cases in<br />
Nova Scotia.<br />
<strong>The</strong> use made of individual sections of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> reveals <strong>the</strong> most striking<br />
differences among jurisdictions. <strong>The</strong> three most frequently litigated sections in<br />
Québec were s7, s11d <strong>and</strong> s8, which were respectively involved in 33.5%,<br />
22.3% <strong>and</strong> 15.1% of all cases. 13 This mix of rights differs considerably from<br />
<strong>the</strong> top three rights in Nova Scotia: s10b, s7, <strong>and</strong> s15(1). 14 But two of <strong>the</strong> three<br />
rights most frequently argued in Québec are among <strong>the</strong> top three that Morton<br />
<strong>and</strong> Wi<strong>the</strong>y found in <strong>the</strong>ir national study of <strong>the</strong> 1982 to 1985 period: s7, s8, <strong>and</strong><br />
s10b. <strong>The</strong> surprising difference is <strong>the</strong> virtual absence in Québec of s10b claims<br />
to <strong>the</strong> right to counsel on arrest or detention. While this right was a recurrent<br />
158
subject in Nova Scotia <strong>and</strong> nationally, less than 5% of Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases<br />
involved this section. Possible explanations for <strong>the</strong> paucity of s10b cases<br />
include: very meticulous work by Québec police officers, <strong>the</strong> unlikely<br />
possibility that lawyers are overlooking a good argument, or some problem in<br />
<strong>the</strong> reporting of Québec cases.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re were also different success rates for <strong>the</strong> various groups of rights. <strong>The</strong><br />
following table indicates <strong>the</strong> success rates of <strong>the</strong> three most frequently litigated<br />
groups of rights.<br />
Table 4 15<br />
Success Rates<br />
Most Litigated Types of Rights<br />
Type of Right Jurisdiction<br />
Québec Nova Scotia Nationally<br />
Fundamental 21 46 24<br />
Legal 26 17 28<br />
Equality 11 32 25<br />
Que & N.S.: s96 courts; National: all<br />
Québec Courts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
Québec judges accepted more claims to legal rights, <strong>and</strong> fewer claims to<br />
fundamental freedoms or equality rights, than did Nova Scotia’s judges;<br />
Québec judges fell only slightly below <strong>the</strong> national average seen in <strong>the</strong> first<br />
three years of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> for legal <strong>and</strong> fundamental claims, but accepted<br />
significantly fewer claims for equal treatment under s15 than did courts across<br />
<strong>the</strong> country during <strong>the</strong> initial period of this section’s enactment. <strong>The</strong> low<br />
success rate of equality claims largely reflects <strong>the</strong> failure of cases arguing<br />
discrimination against particular professional groups by regulatory schemes or<br />
disciplinary procedures; <strong>the</strong>se represented one-quarter of all equality cases,<br />
<strong>and</strong> all but one were rejected. 16<br />
In some respects, <strong>the</strong> general objects of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claims were quite similar in<br />
Québec <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions. More challenges involved <strong>the</strong> actions of<br />
officials (75%) than legal rules (37%); <strong>the</strong>se figures were 75% <strong>and</strong> 33%<br />
respectively for Nova Scotia between 1982 <strong>and</strong> 1990, while Morton <strong>and</strong><br />
Wi<strong>the</strong>y found <strong>the</strong> national aggregate proportions to be 66% <strong>and</strong> 34%<br />
respectively between 1982 <strong>and</strong> 1985. 17<br />
However, Québec courts produced a fairly distinctive pattern of outcomes<br />
with very similar success rates for cases involving laws <strong>and</strong> actions. This<br />
relative uniformity contrasts with o<strong>the</strong>r provincial jurisdictions, with<br />
challenges to legal rules being much less successful than claims against an<br />
official’s actions, as <strong>the</strong> following table illustrates.<br />
159
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Table 5 18<br />
Success Rates of<br />
Challenges to <strong>La</strong>ws <strong>and</strong> Actions<br />
Jurisdiction Challenge to:<br />
<strong>La</strong>w Action<br />
Québec (1982-89) 27 29<br />
Nova Scotia (1982-90) 22 32<br />
Ontario & Federal Courts (1982-86) 26 34<br />
Nationally<br />
Percentage of cases with successful claims<br />
28 33<br />
<strong>The</strong> approach by Québec judges to <strong>the</strong>se two kinds of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases is<br />
interesting; one would anticipate a substantially higher success rate for<br />
challenges to actions for two reasons. First, <strong>the</strong> construction of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is<br />
such that any infringement by a law of a right may be saved under s1, if it is<br />
found to be “demonstrably justified in a free <strong>and</strong> democratic society.”<br />
However, <strong>the</strong>re is no such general saving provision for officials’ actions; only<br />
when <strong>the</strong> exclusion of evidence is sought must a judge overtly decide whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
<strong>the</strong> infringement is serious enough to warrant a remedy. Secondly, <strong>the</strong> nature<br />
of <strong>the</strong> historic relationships between <strong>the</strong> three branches of government would<br />
suggest that <strong>the</strong> judiciary is less reluctant to overrule executive actions than<br />
legislation; <strong>the</strong> courts perform judicial oversight of officials in many contexts<br />
outside <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> litigation.<br />
Québec produces a fur<strong>the</strong>r surprise within <strong>the</strong> group of cases that challenged<br />
legislation. In o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions, more claims have been made against federal<br />
than provincial legislation. In Québec, however, 59 challenges related to<br />
provincial statutes, while only 21 cases involved federal laws. <strong>The</strong><br />
preponderance of challenges to provincial statutes may seem a little<br />
astonishing, given that <strong>the</strong> sweeping use of <strong>the</strong> notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing clause (s33)<br />
should have greatly reduced <strong>the</strong> number of <strong>the</strong>se cases. But <strong>the</strong> employment of<br />
s33 became <strong>the</strong> object of many challenges itself. Even though Jules Deschênes<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Superior Court upheld <strong>the</strong> validity of <strong>the</strong> original use of s33 in an April<br />
1983 decision, litigants continued to attack its general use on <strong>the</strong> grounds that<br />
exempting all legislation violated <strong>the</strong> intent of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. O<strong>the</strong>r Superior<br />
Court judges followed <strong>the</strong>ir Chief Justice’s lead, until <strong>the</strong> Court of Appeal<br />
overturned his decision in June 1985. 19 In all, sixteen cases during <strong>the</strong> period<br />
studied in Québec involved s33. By <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court of Canada<br />
eventually upheld <strong>the</strong> blanket use of <strong>the</strong> notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing clause in <strong>the</strong> 1988<br />
Ford case, <strong>the</strong> original amendments to pre-<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> legislation had reached<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir five-year limit <strong>and</strong> expired. 20 This course of events may help explain <strong>the</strong><br />
many challenges to Québec statutes; following a number of initial challenges<br />
to <strong>the</strong> use of s33, <strong>the</strong> existing statutes amended by <strong>the</strong> 1982 blanket use<br />
reverted back to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s authority between 1985 <strong>and</strong> late 1988. In any<br />
event, it is quite clear that Québec residents have not hesitated to challenge<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir own laws under <strong>the</strong> national values embodied in <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of<br />
Rights.<br />
160
Québec Courts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
Québec judges have accepted a lower proportion of challenges to provincial<br />
legislation to federal law: 22% as opposed to 28.6%. One may be tempted at<br />
first to say that this deference to provincial legislation illustrates an attempt to<br />
protect <strong>the</strong> provincial political system from <strong>the</strong> centralizing influences of <strong>the</strong><br />
national <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. However, such speculation is complicated since <strong>the</strong> lack of<br />
success in challenges to provincial laws is augmented by ten cases in which a<br />
notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing clause precluded any judgment of <strong>the</strong> merits of <strong>the</strong><br />
legislation. When <strong>the</strong>se cases are excluded, <strong>the</strong> success rate of challenges to<br />
provincial laws rises to 26.5%.<br />
<strong>The</strong> comparative data on <strong>the</strong> relative vulnerability of federal <strong>and</strong> provincial<br />
legislation shows ra<strong>the</strong>r mixed patterns. However, Québec judges acted in a<br />
somewhat similar fashion to Ontario judges, who allowed fewer challenges to<br />
provincial than federal statutes. 21 Nova Scotia’s Appeal Court, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
h<strong>and</strong>, showed virtually identical treatment of federal <strong>and</strong> provincial statutes;<br />
roughly 17% of challenges to ei<strong>the</strong>r set of laws were accepted.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Use of Precedents<br />
Since <strong>the</strong> wording of much of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights is vague, judicial<br />
decisions play a key role in giving substance to particular sections of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Only through judicial decision-making do we come to know just what<br />
sort of activities are protected by any one of <strong>the</strong> rights enunciated in <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, as well as what kinds of limitations on those rights are acceptable. As<br />
<strong>the</strong> body of court decisions on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> grows, judges have more material at<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir disposal to solve <strong>the</strong> dilemmas of a case at h<strong>and</strong>. However, a certain<br />
amount of latitude is available to lawyers <strong>and</strong> judges in choosing which past<br />
decisions are considered in a particular case. While lower court judges are<br />
bound by <strong>the</strong> decisions of higher courts in <strong>the</strong> same jurisdiction, <strong>and</strong> of <strong>the</strong><br />
Supreme Court of Canada, <strong>the</strong>y are very free to draw from decisions h<strong>and</strong>ed<br />
down by courts in o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions. With so many <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> decisions<br />
available, judges have considerable discretion in choosing <strong>and</strong> applying<br />
precedents to a current case. Just how often judges in one jurisdiction consider<br />
precedents from o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions is an indication of how much crosspollination<br />
of values may result from <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Considerable use of<br />
precedents from o<strong>the</strong>r provinces or from <strong>the</strong> national courts could lead to a<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>ning of uniform values; indeed, early speculation about <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
centred on its potential as a centralizing force on <strong>the</strong> political <strong>and</strong> legal cultures<br />
across Canada that had evolved so differently under our federal structures. 22<br />
In order to gain some idea of how autonomously Québec judges have been<br />
interpreting <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, a record was kept of which jurisdictions<br />
judges drew <strong>the</strong>ir precedents from in <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases. <strong>The</strong> following table shows<br />
<strong>the</strong> distribution of precedents considered by Québec judges <strong>and</strong> by Nova<br />
Scotian judges for comparison purposes.<br />
161
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Table 6<br />
Percentage of Reported Cases Citing Precedents From:<br />
Jurisdiction23 Québec Nova Scotia<br />
NFLD 3.2 2.8<br />
NS 3.2 46.2<br />
PEI 0.5 2.4<br />
NB 1.9 2.4<br />
QUE 47.7 2.1<br />
ONT 32.9 45.2<br />
MAN 6.9 11.0<br />
SASK 7.4 17.6<br />
ALTA 13.4 11.0<br />
BC 14.4 16.2<br />
FED CT 9.7 3.8<br />
SCC 65.7 54.1<br />
USA 6.5 11.0<br />
UK 7.4 4.8<br />
Several important points emerge from this table concerning <strong>the</strong> breadth of<br />
sources which Québec judges rely upon. 24 First, Québec judges consider<br />
precedents from <strong>the</strong>ir own jurisdiction as frequently as Nova Scotian judges.<br />
Secondly, <strong>the</strong> two sets of data reveal a rough similarity in <strong>the</strong> geographic<br />
distribution of <strong>the</strong> precedents considered. Within <strong>the</strong>se corresponding<br />
patterns, however, a couple of differences emerge: Québec judges rely more<br />
heavily on Supreme Court of Canada decisions <strong>and</strong> less on Ontario precedents<br />
than Nova Scotian judges. <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court of Canada clearly enjoys a<br />
tremendous influence in <strong>the</strong> shaping of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> decisions in Québec. In 16% of<br />
reported cases where <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> issue is substantively addressed, only<br />
precedents from <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court of Canada are considered; by contrast,<br />
7.4% of <strong>the</strong>se cases considered Québec decisions alone. <strong>The</strong> greater use of<br />
Supreme Court precedents in Québec than in Nova Scotia may be partially<br />
explained by <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court having decided seventeen appeals from<br />
Québec but only four from Nova Scotia by <strong>the</strong> end of 1989. Ontario also<br />
emerges as a very strong influence on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s interpretation in o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
provinces; <strong>the</strong> sheer volume of reported Ontario decisions allows that province<br />
to play a leading role. Québec judges have clearly depended upon values<br />
shaped by a national dialogue in order to interpret <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
While judges in Québec may be drawing from <strong>the</strong> national debate on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, it is quite apparent that judges in o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions pay very little<br />
attention to judicial interpretations of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in Québec. Nova Scotian<br />
judges considered Québec precedents in just over 2.1% of <strong>the</strong>ir <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases.<br />
Peter McCormick has established that <strong>the</strong> appeal courts of both Saskatchewan<br />
<strong>and</strong> Manitoba have also referred to very few Québec precedents. In analyses of<br />
all (not just <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>) decisions in 1987, McCormick found that Québec Appeal<br />
Court precedents were referred to in only 1.1% of Manitoba’s Appeal Court<br />
162
Québec Courts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
decisions, <strong>and</strong> in only 0.8% of Saskatchewan’s Appeal Court judgments. 25<br />
Thus, Québec’s judges are interpreting <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> with full consideration of<br />
precedents from across <strong>the</strong> country, but judges in <strong>the</strong> rest of Canada are<br />
reaching <strong>the</strong>ir decisions in blissful ignorance of most developments in Québec.<br />
This state of affairs is probably due to <strong>the</strong> fact that most Québec judges <strong>and</strong><br />
lawyers are functionally bilingual, <strong>and</strong> can readily use judicial decisions<br />
written in English, while judges <strong>and</strong> lawyers in <strong>the</strong> rest of Canada are<br />
predominantly unilingual. Since only a tiny fraction of Québec decisions are<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r written in English or later translated, most Canadian courts operate<br />
without <strong>the</strong> benefit of <strong>the</strong> important <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> interpretations being delivered in<br />
Québec.<br />
<strong>The</strong> evidence of this linguistic divide challenges <strong>the</strong> established line of judicial<br />
reasoning that has not required judicial decisions to be translated. <strong>The</strong> right to<br />
use French <strong>and</strong> English in Québec <strong>and</strong> New Brunswick courts has been<br />
interpreted to mean that litigants <strong>and</strong> judges have <strong>the</strong> choice of language, not<br />
that all proceedings <strong>and</strong> judgments must be conducted <strong>and</strong> written in both<br />
languages. This is quite different from <strong>the</strong> duties imposed on <strong>the</strong> executive <strong>and</strong><br />
legislature to publish laws <strong>and</strong> regulations in both languages. 26 It seems<br />
strange to require that statutes <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> regulations exp<strong>and</strong>ing or defining <strong>the</strong>m<br />
be in both languages, while <strong>the</strong> court decisions that ultimately give substance<br />
to <strong>the</strong>se statutes <strong>and</strong> regulations can be in only one language. Even more<br />
peculiar is that litigants across Canada who try to make a claim under one of<br />
<strong>the</strong> rights in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> may be deprived of key judicial decisions simply<br />
because <strong>the</strong>y, <strong>the</strong>ir lawyers, or <strong>the</strong> judges hearing <strong>the</strong> case are unilingual.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Human Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms<br />
One distinguishing feature of <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in Québec courts<br />
is <strong>the</strong> frequent, simultaneous submission of claims under Québec’s own<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Human Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms. 27 <strong>The</strong> provincial <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> came into<br />
force in 1975, but initially lay little used. However, <strong>the</strong> Parti Québécois<br />
government greatly streng<strong>the</strong>ned <strong>the</strong> provisions of <strong>the</strong> Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> around<br />
<strong>the</strong> time that <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> came into effect. 28 During <strong>the</strong> 1980s, many<br />
more claims have been launched under <strong>the</strong> Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>; indeed, <strong>the</strong>re is an<br />
almost identical number of cases in <strong>the</strong> first 30 volumes of <strong>the</strong> Québec Appeal<br />
Cases (covering mid-1986 to 1989) that involve ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
Claims under <strong>the</strong> Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> have been raised in 34.7% of <strong>the</strong> cases in<br />
which <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has been argued. In most instances, <strong>the</strong> provincial<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is simply a reinforcement of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, since several of<br />
both <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s provisions are very similar. In o<strong>the</strong>r cases, however, <strong>the</strong> Québec<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> claims are additional or complimentary to those made under <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Where claims are made under both <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> outcome of<br />
<strong>the</strong> claims is identical 81.5% of <strong>the</strong> time, with both sets of claims ei<strong>the</strong>r being<br />
accepted or rejected. In only 15.2% of <strong>the</strong> dual-<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases are <strong>the</strong><br />
provincial claims accepted <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> national ones rejected; most of <strong>the</strong>se would<br />
involve cases where <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> was excluded because of <strong>the</strong> use of a<br />
notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing clause.<br />
<strong>The</strong> frequent use of <strong>the</strong> Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> could conceivably have led to a more<br />
distinctive interpretation of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, with precedents from <strong>the</strong><br />
provincial <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> affecting interpretations of <strong>the</strong> national <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. This<br />
direction of influence was extremely rare, however, whereas precedents from<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> are frequently used to interpret <strong>the</strong> Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. As a<br />
163
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
result, <strong>the</strong> national values of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights have strongly<br />
shaped <strong>the</strong> substance of <strong>the</strong> Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. However, <strong>the</strong> actual extent of <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> precedents’ influence on <strong>the</strong> Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cannot be<br />
ascertained without a full study of all cases involving <strong>the</strong> provincial <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. If<br />
any nationalist aversion exists in Québec to <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, it would<br />
likely occur among those who have chosen to make claims under <strong>the</strong> Québec<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> Canadian one. Unfortunately, this factor cannot be<br />
measured without determining how many of <strong>the</strong> Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases involve<br />
claims that could also have been argued under <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, but were<br />
not.<br />
Conclusion<br />
<strong>The</strong> results of this empirical study clearly indicate that <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of<br />
Rights has become an integral element of Québec’s legal culture. <strong>The</strong><br />
Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has been relied upon frequently <strong>and</strong> by a wide range of<br />
Québec litigants. Québec judges have shown no reluctance to entertain or<br />
accept claims under <strong>the</strong> national <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong> overall success rates of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
claims in Québec are well within <strong>the</strong> range seen in o<strong>the</strong>r jurisdictions where<br />
comparable data are available. While <strong>the</strong> cases studied reveal that a different<br />
mix of particular rights has been argued in Québec, <strong>and</strong> with varied results,<br />
each jurisdiction for which <strong>the</strong>re is data enjoys its own distinctive patterns as<br />
well. Perhaps <strong>the</strong> most telling evidence of Québec’s absorption of national<br />
values through <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is seen in <strong>the</strong> geographical range of<br />
precedents considered by Québec judges, as well as <strong>the</strong> interpretation of <strong>the</strong><br />
Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> through <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. While <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of<br />
Rights may have had a controversial political origin, it has since been widely<br />
accepted in Québec.<br />
Notes<br />
* <strong>The</strong> author wishes to express his gratitude to <strong>the</strong> Social Sciences <strong>and</strong> Humanities Research<br />
Council of Canada, whose funding of a Canada Research Fellowship has made this research<br />
possible.<br />
1. One of <strong>the</strong> objections listed in <strong>the</strong> resolution was aimed at <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights, where<br />
Québec wanted an override in any matter within provincial jurisdiction. See: Sheilagh M.<br />
Dunn, <strong>The</strong> Year in Review 1981: Intergovernmental Relations in Canada, (Kingston:<br />
Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, 1982), 35-36.<br />
2. Loi Concernant la Loi <strong>Constitution</strong>nelle de 1982, L.Q. 1982, c.21. This Act removed<br />
3.<br />
Québec legislation from <strong>the</strong> purview of <strong>the</strong> sections of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> that provide<br />
fundamental freedoms, legal rights <strong>and</strong> equality rights.<br />
Some of <strong>the</strong> results were included in: “<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights in Nova Scotian Courts, 1982-<br />
1990,” a paper presented at <strong>the</strong> Canadian Political Science Association meeting in Kingston,<br />
June 1991.<br />
4. <strong>The</strong> results of this research on Québec may be compared to those examining <strong>the</strong> treatment of<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in Ontario <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Federal Court [Patrick Monahan, Politics <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>, (Toronto: Carswell, 1987) at 33-49], Saskatchewan [Saskatchewan <strong>La</strong>w<br />
Review Editorial Board, “<strong>The</strong> Saskatchewan Court of Appeal <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>” (1988), 52<br />
Saskatchewan <strong>La</strong>w Review 191; Peter McCormick, “Case-Load <strong>and</strong> Output of <strong>the</strong><br />
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal: An Analysis of 12 Months of Reported Cases” (1989), 53<br />
Saskatchewan <strong>La</strong>w Review 341], <strong>and</strong> Manitoba [Peter McCormick, “Caseload <strong>and</strong> Output of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Manitoba Court of Appeal: An Analysis of Twelve Months of Reported Cases” (1990),<br />
19 Manitoba <strong>La</strong>w Journal 31]. McCormick’s studies of Saskatchewan <strong>and</strong> Manitoba<br />
involve <strong>the</strong> whole range of <strong>the</strong> appeal courts’ caseload, ra<strong>the</strong>r than just relating to <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court of Canada’s <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> record has been examined in: Andrew D.<br />
Heard, “<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court of Canada: <strong>The</strong> Importance of Which Judges<br />
164
Québec Courts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
Hear an Appeal” (1991), 24 Canadian Journal of Political Science 287; <strong>and</strong>, F.L. Morton,<br />
Peter H. Russell, <strong>and</strong> Michael J. Wi<strong>the</strong>y, “Judging <strong>the</strong> Judges: <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court’s First<br />
One Hundred <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Decisions,” in Paul W. Fox <strong>and</strong> Graham White (eds), Politics:<br />
Canada, 7th ed., (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1991). A national of study of <strong>the</strong> use<br />
made of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> has been published in: F.L. Morton <strong>and</strong> Michael J. Wi<strong>the</strong>y, “Charting<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, 1982-1985: A Statistical Analysis” (1987), Canadian Human Rights Yearbook<br />
65.<br />
5. <strong>The</strong>se two report series are <strong>the</strong> principal sources for reports of full judgments of Québec<br />
cases. Digest summaries of many more cases can be found in Jurisprudence express, but <strong>the</strong><br />
information in <strong>the</strong>se summaries was insufficient to be used in this study.<br />
6. <strong>The</strong>se <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases included two which were decided in 1990, <strong>and</strong> are thus not included in<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r analyses in this paper.<br />
7. In this <strong>and</strong> following tables, data are from original research except where o<strong>the</strong>rwise noted.<br />
Data for Saskatchewan is calculated from Saskatchewan <strong>La</strong>w Review Editorial Board, “<strong>The</strong><br />
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>,” 193.<br />
8. See: Morton, Russell, <strong>and</strong> Wi<strong>the</strong>y, “Judging <strong>the</strong> Judges: <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court’s First 100<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Decisions,” 73-75; <strong>and</strong> Heard, “<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court of Canada.”<br />
9. In Québec, <strong>the</strong> figures for <strong>the</strong>se litigants are: media 6.4%, non-media corporations 11.3%,<br />
trade unions 3.4%; in Nova Scotia <strong>the</strong> comparable breakdown of litigants is: 0.4%, 3.5%,<br />
<strong>and</strong> 0.9% respectively.<br />
10. An indication of how narrow <strong>the</strong> rules are is seen in <strong>the</strong> only case where LEAF was allowed<br />
to intervene: R. c. Caron [1988] 20 QAC 45.<br />
11. Saskatchewan <strong>La</strong>w Review Editorial Board, “<strong>The</strong> Saskatchewan Court of Appeal <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>,” 193; Morton <strong>and</strong> Wi<strong>the</strong>y, “Charting <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, 1982-1985,” 73.<br />
12. All data are from original research.<br />
13. Section 7 of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> states: “Everyone has <strong>the</strong> right to life, liberty <strong>and</strong> security of person<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> right not to be deprived <strong>the</strong>reof except in accordance with <strong>the</strong> principles of<br />
fundamental justice.” <strong>The</strong> provision in s8 reads: “Everyone has <strong>the</strong> right to be secure against<br />
unreasonable search <strong>and</strong> seizure.” Section 11d provides, “Any person charged with an<br />
offence has <strong>the</strong> right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair<br />
<strong>and</strong> public hearing by an independent <strong>and</strong> impartial tribunal.”<br />
14. Section 10b stipulates, “Everyone has <strong>the</strong> right on arrest or detention to retain <strong>and</strong> instruct<br />
counsel without delay <strong>and</strong> to be informed of that right.” Equality rights are protected in<br />
s15(1): “Every individual is equal before <strong>and</strong> under <strong>the</strong> law <strong>and</strong> has <strong>the</strong> right to equal<br />
protection <strong>and</strong> equal benefit of <strong>the</strong> law without discrimination <strong>and</strong>, in particular, without<br />
discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or<br />
physical disability.”<br />
15. National data are from: Morton <strong>and</strong> Wi<strong>the</strong>y, “Charting <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, 1982-1985,” 71.<br />
16. <strong>The</strong> exception was a case which allowed a challenge to <strong>the</strong> differing benefits due under<br />
worker’s compensation to various occupational groups: Coulombe c. Commission d’appel<br />
en matière de lésions professionnelles, (1987) R.J.Q. 1822 (C.S.).<br />
17. Morton <strong>and</strong> Wi<strong>the</strong>y, “Charting <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, 1982-1985,” 72.<br />
18. National data are from Ibid., 72; data for Ontario s96 courts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Federal Court combined<br />
are from: Monahan, Politics <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, 38. <strong>The</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r data are from original<br />
research.<br />
19. Deschênes’ decision was given in: Alliance des professeurs de Montréal c. P.G. du Québec,<br />
(1985) CS 1272. <strong>The</strong> judgment of <strong>the</strong> Appeal court which overturned this case is found at:<br />
(1985) CA 376.<br />
20. Ford v Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 SCR 712.<br />
21. Monahan, Politics <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, 38.<br />
22. See some early discussion of this topic in: Donald Smiley, <strong>The</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
<strong>and</strong> Freedoms, 1981 (Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1981) at 56-61; Peter H. Russell,<br />
“<strong>The</strong> Political Purposes of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms” (1983), 61<br />
Canadian Bar Review 30. A later discussion of <strong>the</strong> effects of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> can be found in:<br />
F.L. Morton, G. Solomon, I. McNish, <strong>and</strong> D.W. Poulton, “Judicial Nullification of Statutes<br />
under <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms, 1982-1989” (1990) 28 Alberta <strong>La</strong>w Review 396-<br />
427.<br />
165
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
23. Québec decisions are for all reported decisions of s96 courts where <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> was<br />
substantively considered; Nova Scotia figures are for all levels of courts.<br />
24. It is worth noting that <strong>the</strong> civil law setting in Québec appears to have virtually no bearing on<br />
<strong>the</strong> treatment of precedents in <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases. At an impressionistic level, no differences<br />
could be seen in <strong>the</strong> way in which Nova Scotian <strong>and</strong> Québec judges considered <strong>and</strong> applied<br />
precedents. In 16.2% of Québec cases, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> issues were settled without referring to<br />
any previous cases, while 17.6% of Nova Scotian cases were similarly decided.<br />
25. McCormick, “Caseload <strong>and</strong> Output of <strong>the</strong> Manitoba Court of Appeal,” p.47; McCormick,<br />
“Caseload <strong>and</strong> Output of <strong>the</strong> Saskatchewan Court of Appeal,” p.356.<br />
26. <strong>The</strong>se rights are found in several sources. Québec <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> federal government are bound by<br />
s133 of <strong>the</strong> 1867 <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, while <strong>the</strong> New Brunswick <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> federal government are<br />
bound by sections 16 to 20 of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights. Judicial decisions are routinely<br />
translated in <strong>the</strong> Federal Court <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court of Canada. Some key decisions on<br />
<strong>the</strong>se rights are: A.G. Quebec v Blaikie (No.1), [1979] 2 SCR 1016; A.G. Quebec v Blaikie<br />
(No.2), [1981] 1 SCR 312; Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents, [1986] 1 SCR<br />
549; Pilote c. Corporation de l’Hôpital Bellechasse, (1988) RJQ 380 (C.S).<br />
27. R.S.Q. c.C-21.<br />
28. For more information on <strong>the</strong> Québec <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> see: J.-Y. Morin, “<strong>La</strong> constitutionnalisation<br />
progressive de la <strong>Charte</strong> des droits et libertés de la personne,” (1987) 21 Revue juridique<br />
Thémis 25; André Morel, “<strong>La</strong> coexistence des <strong>Charte</strong>s canadiennes et québécoise:<br />
problèmes d’interaction,” (1986) Revue de droit, Université de Sherbrooke 49.<br />
166
François Rocher<br />
Daniel Salée<br />
Démocratie et réforme constitutionnelle :<br />
discours et pratique 1<br />
Résumé<br />
Comme on a pu l’observer, aussi bien les représentants des groupes d’intérêts<br />
qu’une majorité de citoyens ont violemment critiqué le caractère non<br />
démocratique du processus de révision de la <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne. Le<br />
présent article analyse les propos à cet égard des uns et des autres avant<br />
d’examiner l’approche des intellectuels afin de voir si ces derniers ont<br />
renouvelé la pensée sur la démocratie en des termes différents de ceux utilisés<br />
par les élites politiques et sociales au Canada.<br />
Enfin, en opposant au discours constitutionnel que l’on nous a servi une vision<br />
de la démocratie qui se veut large et ancrée dans le social, les auteurs<br />
démontrent qu’aucune tentative de penser l’imbrication du corps politique et<br />
de la société civile à la lumière de concepts aussi fondamentaux que liberté,<br />
égalité, autorité ou obligation n’a jamais véritablement marqué les exercices<br />
de révision constitutionnelle.<br />
Abstract<br />
Both <strong>the</strong> representatives of interest groups <strong>and</strong> a majority of Canadians have<br />
harshly criticized <strong>the</strong> undemocratic nature of <strong>the</strong> Canadian constitutional<br />
review process. This article analyzes statements in this regard by <strong>the</strong> various<br />
parties concerned, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n proceeds to examine <strong>the</strong> approach taken by<br />
intellectuals, to determine whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y have reopened <strong>the</strong> discussion of<br />
democracy in different terms than those used by Canada’s political <strong>and</strong> social<br />
elites.<br />
<strong>La</strong>stly, by comparing <strong>the</strong> constitutional discourse already presented to us with<br />
a broad, socially-centred vision of democracy, <strong>the</strong> authors demonstrate that<br />
<strong>the</strong> process of constitutional review has never truly attempted to situate <strong>the</strong><br />
body politic <strong>and</strong> civil society within such fundamental ideas as freedom,<br />
equality, authority or obligation.<br />
À l’instar des sociétés occidentales, le Canada vit actuellement l’épuisement<br />
du modèle de développement hérité des années d’après-guerre. Cet<br />
épuisement, on le sent à travers une certaine crise de légitimité socioinstitutionnelle<br />
qui, si elle n’est pas toujours manifeste dans le comportement<br />
quotidien des Canadiens, n’en est pas moins en train d’affaiblir le tissu social.<br />
Un sondage réalisé par le Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail en octobre 1990 indiquait que<br />
seulement 4 p. 100 des répondants estimaient que le régime actuel fonctionnait<br />
bien. Par contre, 34 p. 100 réclamaient une « refonte complète » du système<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
alors que 32 p. 100 souhaitaient des « changements considérables » et 29<br />
p. 100, « certains changements » (Dobell et Berry, 1992 : 19). Une compilation<br />
des sondages effectués depuis quinze ou vingt ans sur la satisfaction des<br />
Canadiens à l’égard de leurs institutions politiques montre un net déclin de la<br />
confiance et du respect vis-à-vis le système, le gouvernement et les élus<br />
(Dobell et Berry, 1992 : 5-12). Le rapport Spicer faisait d’ailleurs écho à ce<br />
désenchantement en notant la « perte de la foi envers le système politique » et<br />
le « désir unanime d’un changement profond » (Panitch, 1991 : 19).<br />
Le processus intense de révision constitutionnelle dans lequel le<br />
gouvernement a engagé le pays depuis l’Accord du lac Meech ne peut faire<br />
abstraction de ce mécontentement et du malaise socio-politique qui marquent<br />
cette fin de siècle. Alors que cela aurait pu être un moment privilégié de<br />
réflexion collective sur les paramètres de l’existence sociale, sur les valeurs et<br />
les normes qui doivent régir les rapports socio-économiques mutuels et la<br />
reconfiguration même de la communauté, les débats sur la <strong>Constitution</strong> ont<br />
souvent été un vain exercice de rhétorique politique et juridique dominé par les<br />
experts et les politiciens.<br />
Faut-il s’en étonner ? Reg Whitaker n’observait-il pas, il y a dix ans, que toute<br />
réflexion sur la nature de la <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne ou sur les réformes qu’il y<br />
aurait peut-être lieu d’y apporter a toujours eu tendance à mettre l’accent sur<br />
les rapports entre les différents ordres de gouvernement plutôt qu’entre l’État<br />
et la population ou entre les divers agents sociaux. Avec pour résultat que la<br />
révision constitutionnelle n’a jamais abordé la question pourtant cruciale de<br />
l’imbrication du corps politique et de la société civile à la lumière de concepts<br />
tels que la liberté, l’égalité, l’autorité ou l’obligation (Whitaker, 1992 : 207).<br />
Ce texte participe de la conviction que peu de choses ont changé depuis dix<br />
ans. En dépit des dénonciations de l’approche exclusiviste qui a présidé à la<br />
négociation de l’Accord du lac Meech (11 hommes blancs réunis à huis clos<br />
décidant de l’avenir du pays), en dépit aussi de l’engagement maintes fois<br />
réitéré après son échec de solliciter l’avis de la population et d’inclure les<br />
représentants des divers groupes dans le processus de renouvellement<br />
constitutionnel, les débats sur la <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne et les propositions de<br />
réforme qui en émanent restent étrangement confinés à la mécanique de<br />
partage de pouvoirs administratifs et à la reconfiguration des institutions<br />
parlementaires. Même les groupes dont on aurait pu espérer qu’ils forcent un<br />
déplacement vers des questions de fond sont le plus souvent cooptés par la<br />
logique institutionnaliste du discours sur la <strong>Constitution</strong> et s’enferment eux<br />
aussi dans ses paramètres étroits.<br />
Bizarrement, personne ne semble s’être encore attardé de manière sérieuse aux<br />
fondements sociétaux sur lesquels devrait reposer, au moins théoriquement,<br />
toute refonte de la <strong>Constitution</strong>. Peu d’intervenants réalisent que le débat<br />
constitutionnel est aussi un débat de société et que l’État et la société n’existent<br />
pas en vase clos, indépendamment l’un de l’autre. Nous soutiendrons dans ce<br />
texte que c’est là une erreur eu égard aux exigences de la démocratie. Tout le<br />
débat autour de la <strong>Constitution</strong> s’est fait en fonction d’une conception étroite<br />
de la démocratie, comme si des garanties institutionnelles suffisaient pour<br />
maintenir un niveau acceptable de démocratie en assurant un modus vivendi<br />
non seulement entre les institutions parlementaires et politiques, mais aussi et<br />
surtout des interactions multiples et variées entre les agents sociaux. L’enjeu<br />
véritable des réformes constitutionnelles ne doit pas se limiter aux seules<br />
168
Démocratie et réforme constitutionnelle :<br />
discours et pratique<br />
modifications institutionnelles; il réside aussi dans un vouloir vivre collectif,<br />
dans la capacité d’empathie, de solidarité et de réciprocité.<br />
Le but du présent texte est de démontrer que le discours autour de la réforme<br />
constitutionnelle canadienne, tant celui des experts que celui des politiciens et<br />
des divers autres intervenants, n’a fait que reconduire les catégories<br />
traditionnelles de la démocratie parlementaire et les principes de base sur<br />
lesquels le fédéralisme canadien s’est historiquement constitué et développé.<br />
Dans un premier temps, il s’agira de relever les propos tenus par les<br />
représentants de différents groupes ou par les particuliers qui se sont<br />
prononcés sur les pratiques démocratiques de l’exercice constitutionnel, soit<br />
pour en dénoncer les carences ou pour en justifier les mécanismes existants.<br />
Depuis 1987, les Canadiens ont eu de nombreuses occasions de faire valoir<br />
leurs points de vue sur les modalités de modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong>. Nous<br />
avons particulièrement retenu les opinions exprimées devant les comités<br />
parlementaires pertinents : le comité Tremblay-Speyer, le comité Beaudoin-<br />
Edwards ainsi que sur les propositions déposées par le gouvernement fédéral<br />
en septembre 1991 (comité Beaudoin-Dobbie). Nous croyons que ces<br />
différents moments permettent de saisir la multiplicité des positions<br />
défendues. Dans un second temps, nous nous pencherons sur la manière dont<br />
les experts, les universitaires et les intellectuels ont envisagé la problématique<br />
de la démocratie. <strong>La</strong> question qui se pose est de savoir dans quelle mesure ils<br />
ont renouvelé la pensée sur la démocratie en des termes différents de ceux mis<br />
de l’avant par les élites politiques et les figures de proue des mouvements<br />
sociaux au Canada. Finalement, en opposant au discours constitutionnel que<br />
l’on nous a servi jusqu’à maintenant une vision de la démocratie qui se veut<br />
large et ancrée dans le social, nous tenterons de démontrer combien l’exercice<br />
actuel de réforme de la <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne participe d’une fiction<br />
institutionnelle qui risque en fait de nous éloigner d’une pratique au<strong>the</strong>ntique<br />
de la démocratie.<br />
<strong>La</strong> démocratie parlementaire et le fédéralisme exécutif au banc des<br />
accusés<br />
Nombre de gens ont reproché au processus qu’a mené à l’Accord du lac Meech<br />
un caractère élitiste et oligarchique qui favorisait le secret et écartait<br />
délibérément la participation du public. Aux yeux de plusieurs, le mépris des<br />
politiciens à l’endroit des principes démocratiques exigeait une remise en<br />
question des mécanismes politiques présidant aux modifications<br />
constitutionnelles. Si ces critiques avaient toutes en commun un certain<br />
désenchantement à l’égard de la conduite des affaires publiques par les<br />
politiciens, elles ne partagaient pas une identité de point de vue quant aux<br />
origines du mal à circonscrire et aux moyens à mettre en oeuvre pour y arriver.<br />
Il importe donc de jeter un regard critique sur les doléances formulées à<br />
l’endroit du processus pour saisir la vision de la démocratie qui les alimente.<br />
On peut classer les points de vue soulevés en deux catégories : d’une part, ceux<br />
ayant trait à la représentation de certaines catégories de la population dans le<br />
cadre des négociations constitutionnelles formelles et, d’autre part, ceux<br />
touchant la participation du public aux diverses étapes du processus. D’un côté<br />
comme de l’autre, il s’agit d’une remise en cause de la démocratie<br />
parlementaire et du fédéralisme exécutif tels que pratiqués au Canada.<br />
Ce sont surtout les représentants des groupes autochtones et de femmes qui ont<br />
protesté contre leur absence à la table des négociations. Pour les premiers, la<br />
169
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
structure politique du Canada et le principe de la majorité électorale<br />
contribuent à marginaliser les peuples autochtones (Canada, 1987, 9 : 29) et ne<br />
leur permettent pas de vraiment participer à la Confédération canadienne. Ils<br />
réclamèrent donc d’être partie prenante aux conférences des premiers<br />
ministres afin de pouvoir veiller à la protection de leurs droits et oeuvres à une<br />
refonte de la <strong>Constitution</strong> qui leur soit favorable (Canada, 1991a, 26 : 32).<br />
Quant aux représentantes des groupes de femmes, elles ont reproché aux<br />
gouvernements leur exclusion du processus (Canada, 1987, 15 : 154) et exigé<br />
d’être présentes lorsque leurs droits font l’objet de discussions, car aucun autre<br />
intervenant n’était mieux en mesure que les femmes elles-mêmes de faire<br />
valoir leur point de vue avec l’angle d’approche qui est le leur (Canada, 1992,<br />
10 : 26). En somme, chez les autochtones comme chez les femmes, on voulait<br />
participer au processus afin d’infléchir le cours des événements : pour les<br />
premiers, en vertu de leur statut de minoritaires; pour les seconds, à cause<br />
d’une absence de sensibilité aux problématiques des femmes. Les<br />
représentantes des groupes de femmes soutenaient même que les députées<br />
étaient moins en mesure qu’elles de défendre la cause des femmes étant donné<br />
que leurs groupes avaient jusqu’alors été les porte-parole de leurs intérêts<br />
auprès des institutions politiques (Maillé, 1992).<br />
Leur inclusion respective à la table des discussions répondrait, pour une large<br />
part, aux critiques formulées à l’endroit du processus des négociations<br />
constitutionnelles. Il faut toutefois faire remarquer que, ce faisant, c’est<br />
l’économie générale des institutions politiques et de la démocratie formelle<br />
qui en aurait été modifée, et ce, pour deux raisons.<br />
D’une part, l’ajout de nouveaux intervenants sociaux dans les mécanismes<br />
traditionnels de négociations issus du fédéralisme exécutif mettrait face à face<br />
des porte-parole dont la légitimité ne repose pas sur les mêmes bases. Les<br />
premiers ministres tiennent leur autorité de leur élection et du m<strong>and</strong>at qu’ils<br />
ont reçu d’une pluralité d’électeurs. <strong>La</strong> légitimité des représentants de groupes<br />
d’intérêts repose davantage sur la nature des liens qui les unit à leurs groupes<br />
respectifs. Ces leaders doivent bien entendu rendre des comptes, mais sur la<br />
base d’une obligation de résultats touchant à des aspects beaucoup plus<br />
restreints. Élus à partir d’un vaste programme, les politiciens sont les<br />
m<strong>and</strong>ataires de la volonté populaire qui s’est exprimée à l’occasion d’élections<br />
générales.<br />
<strong>La</strong> participation des groupes d’intérêts aux négociations soulève donc la<br />
question de leur représentativité. Dans le cadre d’une démocratie<br />
parlementaire, les élus sont des fondés de pouvoir pour l’ensemble des<br />
électeurs. L’arrivée de nouveaux intervenants peut être interprétée comme un<br />
aveu d’incapacité de la part du régime politique traditionnel de représenter<br />
certains intérêts particuliers. Dans le cas des autochtones et des femmes, leurs<br />
situations respectives expliquent en gr<strong>and</strong>e partie leur insatisfaction à l’égard<br />
d’une démocratie qualifiée de tyrannie de la majorité. Toutefois, l’inclusion de<br />
leurs représentants constituerait une reconnaissance implicite de l’illégitimité<br />
des politiciens à les représenter et confirmerait même l’incapacité de ces<br />
derniers à comprendre les tenants et aboutissants de leurs revendications et<br />
signifierait qu’ils ne parlent désormais que pour une portion de plus en plus<br />
congrue de la population, tous les autres clivages étant confondus.<br />
<strong>La</strong> remise en question du processus de négociation de la <strong>Constitution</strong> a soulevé<br />
un second ordre de critiques faisant référence à l’absence ou à la faible<br />
participation de la population. Suite à Meech, on a reproché au processus de<br />
170
Démocratie et réforme constitutionnelle :<br />
discours et pratique<br />
manquer de transparence et de favoriser indûment le secret. En d’autres<br />
termes, Meech fut pris à partie pour avoir été concocté en catimini, entériné par<br />
onze premiers ministres sans consultation publique préalable et présenté<br />
comme intouchable jusqu’à sa ratification finale, qui n’eût d’ailleurs jamais<br />
lieu (Canada, 1987, 3 : 92; 13 : 27; 15 : 139; Canada, 1991a, 25 : 81). Certains<br />
ont même accusé les gouvernements d’avoir délibérément privilégié<br />
l’exclusion du public. <strong>La</strong> démocratie parlementaire et le fédéralisme exécutif<br />
ont été dénoncés comme favorisant la complicité des élites sans égard aux<br />
attentes de la population (Canada, 1991a, 31 : 48), renforçant le pouvoir d’une<br />
« oligarchie » constituée des premiers ministres (Canada, 1991a, 15 : 47),<br />
illustrant la manipulation du public par les élites et, par le fait même, niant les<br />
principes du gouvernement responsable (Canada, 1991a, 31 : 38). On y<br />
stigmatise le fédéralisme exécutif, lequel n’exige aucune participation de la<br />
population au processus (Canada, 1991a, 10 : 70). Ce phénomène est<br />
parfaitement bien illustré par la formule d’amendement qui est définie<br />
uniquement dans la perspective du fédéralisme, laissant de côté les dimensions<br />
démocratique et populaire de la gouverne politique. En somme, au fédéralisme<br />
exécutif on oppose la souveraineté populaire. On soutient que la <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
appartient d’abord au peuple et qu’elle ne saurait être modifiée sans que celuici<br />
n’ait eu l’occasion de se prononcer sur le nouveau contrat social négocié par<br />
les élites, que ce soit par le biais de la convocation d’une assemblée<br />
constituante ou par la tenue d’un référendum (Canada, 1991a, 29 : 60-61 et 9 :<br />
37). Pour plusieurs, la modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong> pourrait se réaliser non<br />
plus en ayant recours au fédéralisme exécutif, mais par la convocation d’une<br />
assemblée constituants chargée d’en rédiger une nouvelle. Manifestement,<br />
pareille idée s’oppose au pouvoir des élites politiques traditionnelles qui ne<br />
seraient pas investies du m<strong>and</strong>at de transformer la loi fondamentale du pays.<br />
Les pourfendeurs de la démocratie parlementaire ne sont pas moins virulents.<br />
Selon eux, le principe du gouvernement responsable serait entaché par la règle<br />
de la discipline de parti qui écarte l’idée que les gouvernements sont d’abord<br />
élus à titre de représentants de la population et doivent démissionner ou obtenir<br />
un nouveau m<strong>and</strong>at s’ils perdent la confiance du public. Dans les faits,<br />
soutiennent-ils, le gouvernement responsable et représentatif est une vue de<br />
l’esprit. Encore ici, la formule d’amendement constitutionnel illustre bien<br />
l’exclusion de la population du processus politique (Canada, 1991a, 2 : 88-89).<br />
C’est donc toute la légitimité du processus qui est remise en cause. Pour les<br />
uns, comme Cairns, il importe d’abord et avant tout d’y incorporer les<br />
principaux groupes sociaux:«lalégitimité du processus et son utilité à long<br />
terme pour les Canadiens dépend de l’incorporation d’une pluralité d’intérêts<br />
incluant les gouvernements, les groupes visés par la <strong>Charte</strong>, les peuples<br />
autochtones et un nombre important d’autres groupes qui restent souvent sur la<br />
touche » (Canada, 1991a, 23 : 22-23). Cette nécessité découle non seulement<br />
de la nouvelle réalité politique qui s’est mise en place au Canada depuis 1982 et<br />
de l’adoption de la <strong>Charte</strong> des droits et libertés, comme le prétend Cairns, mais<br />
traduit aussi un sentiment de déception, pour ne pas dire d’animosité, à<br />
l’endroit des politiciens. Certains en sont même venus à accorder une<br />
crédibilité équivalente, sinon supérieure, aux représentants des groupes<br />
sociaux (Canada, 1991a, 26 : 25). Pour d’autres, comme Brad Morse, il s’agit<br />
plutôt d’accorder une plus large place aux citoyens et de les consulter tout au<br />
long du processus, ne serait-ce que pour leur donner l’impression qu’ils<br />
participent aux changements constitutionnels (Canada, 1991a, 3 : 67).<br />
171
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
Derrière cet ensemble de critiques se profile la volonté exprimée par plusieurs<br />
intervenants de donner à la population l’occasion de se prononcer à un moment<br />
ou à un autre du processus de négociation constitutionnelle. <strong>La</strong> démocratie est<br />
perçue d’abord sous sa forme institutionnelle. <strong>La</strong> question posée est celle de<br />
savoir quels mécanismes permettraient une meilleure participation populaire.<br />
Ou cherche en partie à atténuer le cynisme des citoyens à l’égard de leurs<br />
politiciens et du système politique en suggérant une foule de propositions en<br />
vue d’accroître cette participation, allant de l’assemblée constituante à un<br />
référendum national.<br />
Comme l’a fait remarquer Ka<strong>the</strong>rine Swinton, il faut distinguer au moins trois<br />
étapes dans le processus de modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong> : l’élaboration des<br />
modifications proposées, leur négociation et, enfin, leur ratification (Canada,<br />
1991a, 9 : 37). Le type de participation peut donc varier en fonction de chacune<br />
des étapes. Les promoteurs de l’idée de la convocation d’une assemblée<br />
constituante, dont la composition et le rôle variaient selon les intervenants,<br />
visaient surtout à accroître la participation du public lors de la première étape.<br />
Ce mécanisme est présenté comme le seul véritablement démocratique dans la<br />
mesure où il garantit la présence des citoyens dans le processus, regroupe des<br />
individus plus représentatifs de la société canadienne, limite la partisanerie qui<br />
entrave la représentation et la possibilité d’établir un consensus et rend<br />
légitime les propositions aux yeux des Canadiens (Canada, 1991b : 47). Ceuxci<br />
sont tenus de représenter les points de vue de ceux qui les ont élus.<br />
Le référendum, quant à lui, correspond à l’étape de la ratification des<br />
modifications proposées. Pour Vincent Lemieux, c’est le meilleur moyen de<br />
faire participer la population; à cet égard, il est supérieur aux audiences<br />
publiques ou aux commissions parlementaires (Canada, 1991a, 2 : 86-87).<br />
Toutefois, la formule du référendum n’est pas en soit miraculeuse. Certains ont<br />
exprimé la crainte que les résultats sèment la discorde en révélant des clivages<br />
nationaux ou régionaux préjudiciables à la recherche ou la consolidation de<br />
l’unité nationale. Un référendum ne saurait contredire la nature fédérale du<br />
régime politique et être utilisé pour faire l’économie d’une entente entre les<br />
premiers ministres (Canada, 1992, 38 : 24).<br />
Force est de constater qu’à travers toutes ces récriminations à l’endroit du<br />
processus et de son caractère plus ou moins démocratique, on ne retrouve<br />
aucune réflexion approfondie sur le sens de la démocratie. On s’est surtout<br />
penché sur le caractère formel de l’exercice (possibilité plus ou moins gr<strong>and</strong>e<br />
de participation). Cela étant, il était facile à certains observateurs de faire<br />
remarquer, comme l’a fait Swinton, que « les négociations constitutionnelles<br />
du lac Meech ont sans doute été les plus démocratiques de notre histoire si tant<br />
est que la démocratie se mesure au degré de participation du pouvoir<br />
législatif » (Canada, 1991a, 9 : 37). Au sens strict, il n’est pas faux de faire<br />
remarquer que si l’élaboration du projet de réforme a été le fait du pouvoir<br />
exécutif, la participation du pouvoir législatif a été sans précédent, car toutes<br />
les assemblées législatives se devaient d’entériner l’Accord. En ce sens,<br />
l’échec de Meech s’explique en gr<strong>and</strong>e partie par l’opposition d’une forte<br />
majorité de la population canadienne qui a trouvé écho au sein de deux<br />
assemblées législatives plus récalcitrantes que d’autres. Paradoxalement,<br />
certains pourraient même soutenir que l’échec de Meech confirme le succès de<br />
la démocratie, vue comme la manifestation de la volonté populaire.<br />
De la même manière, d’un point de vue instrumental, on peut arguer que la<br />
formule actuelle de modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong> n’a pas besoin d’être<br />
172
Démocratie et réforme constitutionnelle :<br />
discours et pratique<br />
changée pour permettre une plus gr<strong>and</strong>e participation du public. Il s’agirait<br />
seulement de généraliser la tenue d’audiences publiques pour que la<br />
population ait davantage d’occasions de faire valoir ses attentes (Brock, 1991).<br />
<strong>La</strong> transparence du processus pourrait être assurée par une meilleure<br />
information du public sur les progrès accomplis et les consensus atteints. De<br />
plus, il est loin d’être certain que la formule de l’assemblée constituante<br />
produirait les effets attendus. L’élection des participants ne pourrait être<br />
impartiale compte tenu des intérêts partisans en jeu. Plutôt que d’être ouverts<br />
aux compromis, les élus de ces assemblées pourraient bien s’en tenir à la<br />
position défendue au moment de leur élection, insufflant dans le processus<br />
plus de rigidité qu’il n’y en a à l’heure actuelle (Canada, 1991b : 51).<br />
D’autres ont soutenu, comme Richard Simeon et J. Peter Meekison, que le<br />
processus ayant conduit à Meech n’était pas illégitime. Cette entente n’a pas<br />
été conçue subitement au cours des quelques heures de négociations en mai et<br />
juin 1987. Au contraire, les éléments qui s’y sont retrouvés ont fait l’objet de<br />
débats approfondis pendant de nombreuses années et l’ordre du jour fut établi<br />
publiquement. On rappelle que le gouvernement conservateur avait fondé une<br />
partie de sa campagne électorale sur cette question (Canada, 1987, 5 : 74, 87 et<br />
10 : 41).<br />
Il importe de faire remarquer qu’en dépit de l’omniprésence des discours sur la<br />
démocratie dans les critiques à l’endroit du processus de révision<br />
constitutionnelle, les intervenants — groupes sociaux ou particuliers — s’en<br />
sont essentiellement tenus au caractère instrumental de la pratique de la<br />
démocratie. On n’y retrouve pas de véritable remise en question du mode<br />
d’insertion des individus et des groupes marginalisés au sein de la société<br />
canadienne. En vérité, le débat constitutionnel a tourné autour de questions<br />
relativement techniques : les modalités de nomination des participants à une<br />
assemblée constituante, les bienfaits de la tenue d’un référendum, les<br />
mécanismes devant présider à la conduite des audiences publiques, etc. Bien<br />
sûr, certains n’ont pas manqué de souligner au passage les lacunes du<br />
fédéralisme exécutif et de la démocratie parlementaire, mais toujours pour<br />
faire ressortir l’absence d’une véritable participation des citoyens. Cette<br />
approche fait l’économie d’une réflexion approfondie sur les faiblesses de la<br />
pratique démocratique, une réflexion qui mettrait l’accent sur les principes de<br />
solidarité sociale et les conditions de la citoyenneté. Au contraire, tout se passe<br />
comme si les individus et les groupes s’opposaient les uns aux autres à travers<br />
les institutions formelles du système politique, recherchant à la fois protection<br />
et promotion de leurs droits, définis sur la base de catégories sociales<br />
déterminées.<br />
Le fédéralisme comme fondement de la démocratie et de la<br />
citoyenneté ?<br />
Reg Whitaker, qui réfléchit depuis longtemps à la problématique de la<br />
démocratie dans le cadre fédéral canadien (1992 : 165-230, 283-328), a été<br />
l’un des premiers à prévoir la dénonciation du caractère antidémocratique du<br />
processus constitutionnel. Son analyse fine des sources politiques et<br />
idéologiques de la <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne indique la nature profondément<br />
élitiste et antidémocratique de ses fondements et des pratiques politiques<br />
qu’elle a soutenues. Certes, avec le temps, reconnaît-il, la notion britannique<br />
de souveraineté incarnée par le « Gouverneur en conseil » de même que la<br />
doctrine à la fois rivale et complémentaire de suprématie parlementaire se sont<br />
quelque peu étiolées sous l’action combinée de l’extension du suffrage<br />
173
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
universel et de la montée des partis politiques. Mais c’est plutôt du côté du<br />
fédéralisme, non pas en tant que système administratif de partage de pouvoir<br />
mais comme appui de la démocratie, que Whitaker propose de regarder pour<br />
élargir le champ de la pratique démocratique. Le fédéralisme moderne,<br />
soutient-il, permet d’éviter que l’expression de la volonté de la majorité<br />
nationale agisse comme seule base légitime de législation. Le cadre fédératif<br />
empêche que la majorité nationale s’impose comme seul critère de la<br />
souveraineté, cette dernière se répartissant entre diverses souverainetés<br />
régionales. Certes, Whitaker admet que les particularités du système électoral<br />
canadien peuvent parfois diluer le potentiel démocratique du fédéralisme : au<br />
Canada, la majorité nationale n’équivaut bien souvent à rien de plus que la<br />
suprématie d’une province ou d’une région sur les autres. Quoi qu’il en soit,<br />
Whitaker n’en proclame pas moins la compatibilité du fédéralisme et de la<br />
démocratie en ce que l’un et l’autre se renforcent mutuellement. Le<br />
fédéralisme, prétend-il, offre les garanties institutionnelles d’une citoyenneté<br />
plus complexe et plus large. Cela peut, bien sûr, conduire à une multiplicité<br />
d’expressions politiques, de volontés contradictoires de représentation et de<br />
loyautés identitaires antagoniques qui constituent autant de défis à la pratique<br />
démocratique, mais qui l’obligent aussi à se renouveler.<br />
Whitaker symbolise en quelque sorte le malaise et l’ambiguïté actuels de la<br />
pensée sur la démocratie au Canada. En posant le fédéralisme comme un<br />
fondement important de la démocratie, il montre combien sa conception de la<br />
démocratie est finalement dépendante de l’appareillage institutionnel qui en<br />
permet l’exercice. On cherchera en vain chez Whitaker une définition précise<br />
des éléments constitutifs de la citoyenneté préalable à la pratique<br />
démocratique. L’intérêt du fédéralisme à cet égard tient au fait que sur le plan<br />
institutionnel, il assure une représentation plus juste et égalitaire des droits des<br />
individus contre la tyrannie de la majorité. Whitaker nous met peut-être sur<br />
une piste intéressante, car dans sa forme pure et absolue, le fédéralisme permet<br />
en effet une décentralisation de la souveraineté. Cependant, dans la mesure où<br />
les paramètres d’insertion des particularismes restent indéfinis, on ne peut se<br />
rallier complètement à Whitaker. En bout de piste, la position qu’il défend<br />
approuve la démocratie de représentation — surtout si elle est tempérée par des<br />
codes de libertés fondamentales qui protègent les opinions minoritaires — et<br />
se range à l’intérieur de la conception territoriale traditionnelle de la politique<br />
canadienne qui ne cherche finalement qu’à assurer la protection des volontés<br />
régionales. Whitaker n’offre aucune vision sociétale de la démocratie, dont la<br />
problématique s’identifie aux mécanismes de la gouverne.<br />
En fait, Whitaker compte peut-être parmi les rares à avoir cherché quelque sens<br />
démocratique à la quête constitutionnelle canadienne. De façon générale, les<br />
experts, les universitaires et les intellectuels qui s’intéressent au dossier et qui<br />
ont exprimé leur avis durant ou en marge des débats ont rarement poussé leur<br />
pensée jusque sur le terrain d’une reconceptualisation du sens de la<br />
démocratie. Dans presque tous les cas, ils ou elles se sont conformés au cadre<br />
étroit de réflexion imposé par les élites politiques. Il suffit pour s’en<br />
convaincre de consulter les procès-verbaux des audiences des diverses<br />
commissions sur la <strong>Constitution</strong> qui ont sondé les Canadiens au cours des<br />
dernières années. Que ce soit dans le cadre des ces commissions lors de forums<br />
publics ou semi-publics, ces gens n’ont jamais tenté de renouveler le discours<br />
sur la démocratie. Tout comme les groupes, associations et particuliers qui ont<br />
présenté des mémoires, l’intelligentsia canadienne s’est surtout attachée à<br />
relever les faiblesses institutionnelles qui menacent l’exercice de la<br />
174
Démocratie et réforme constitutionnelle :<br />
discours et pratique<br />
démocratie sans se préoccuper des conditions sociales essentielles à la<br />
démocratie ou encore des paramètres idéaux d’une citoyenneté élargie. Elle est<br />
tombée, elle aussi, dans le panneau des discussions de plomberie<br />
institutionnelle. À lire l’imposante documentation sur la question (à titre<br />
indicatif voir Behiels, 1989; Barrie, 1988; Smith, 1991; Cairns, 1992a; Silipo,<br />
1991), on s’aperçoit vite que c’est d’abord la démocratisation du processus de<br />
réforme constitutionnelle qui retient l’attention des experts et non pas le<br />
contenu même de la démocratie. En cela, leurs propos ne s’écartent guère des<br />
multiples positions exprimées devant les comités parlementaires. Certes, il<br />
n’est pas inutile de chercher les moyens d’une juste représentation, mais<br />
l’élargissement de la démocratie ne tient pas aux seuls mécanismes de la<br />
représentation.<br />
Alan Cairns (1988) fournit les éléments d’une explication à cette espèce<br />
d’obsession institutionnelle. D’après lui, la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982<br />
marquait une rupture dans la façon d’aborder la chose constitutionnelle au<br />
Canada et dans la manière surtout de s’y sentir partie prenante.<br />
L’enchâssement d’une charte des droits et libertés dans la <strong>Constitution</strong> a créé,<br />
d’après Cairns, une <strong>Constitution</strong> de citoyens encourageant les groupes et les<br />
individus historiquement exclus de la dynamique politique à prendre la place<br />
qui leur revient de droit. Alors que les discussions relatives à la <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
ont toujours été le moment de tractations entre élites bureaucratiques et<br />
politiques, la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 a invité les citoyens à se considérer<br />
aussi comme acteurs à part entière. Ce changement important dans la culture<br />
politique du pays pose inévitablement tout le problème de la participation et de<br />
la représentation et donc des modalités d’insertion institutionnelle des intérêts<br />
multiples et antagoniques appelés à se manifester (Fortin, 1992 : 5-6). L’échec<br />
de l’Accord du lac Meech tiendrait en partie à ce qu’on avait compté sans la<br />
réaction des groupes et citoyens nouvellement « accrédités » par la <strong>Charte</strong>, qui<br />
n’auront pas accepté de n’avoir pas été inclus dans le processus (Cairns, 1991 :<br />
19).<br />
Dans un texte récent (1992), Jane Jenson a bien retracé cette dynamique<br />
qu’elle lie à l’évolution du sens de la citoyenneté et aux modifications du<br />
contenu identitaire au Canada. Durant presque toute la première moitié du 20e siècle, observe-t-elle, la région et la culture ont défini les clivages politiques<br />
les plus importants. Les groupes dont l’action se réclamaient de l’identité<br />
régionale utilisaient le système de partis pour obtenir d’Ottawa un partage<br />
équitable des ressources socio-économiques. De même, ceux qui se<br />
mobilisaient sur la base de l’appartenance culturelle utilisaient à la fois les<br />
canaux provincial et fédéral pour faire valoir leurs revendications. Jusqu’à la<br />
Deuxième Guerre mondiale, les intérêts régionaux et ethnoculturels<br />
s’exprimeront essentiellement à travers la représentation partisane et<br />
ministérielle. Après 1945, c’est dans le cadre de négociations<br />
intergouvernementales surtout que se manifesteront les prétentions à la<br />
citoyenneté. Toujours selon Jenson, depuis l’entrée en vigueur de la <strong>Charte</strong>,<br />
cependant, l’action des groupes tend à se situer en dehors du système partisan<br />
et des mécanismes intergouvernementaux. Ainsi, l’échec de Meech manifeste<br />
l’échec des institutions représentatives de la démocratie libérale, à savoir le<br />
système de partis et le fédéralisme exécutif. Le processus de prise de décision<br />
fut dénoncé parce qu’il niait les principes de la souveraineté parlementaire<br />
ainsi que les nouvelles formes de représentation des mouvements sociaux et<br />
des groupes d’intérêts. Ces nouvelles formes de représentation offrent une utre<br />
voie au secteur populaire qui ne compte plus sur le système de partis pour faire<br />
175
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
valoir ses intérêts (Breton et Jenson, 1991 : 201). L’espace politique vital de<br />
ces groupes serait autrement défini : leur identité est intimement liée à leur<br />
préférence pour des formes nouvelles de démocratie politique. Jenson soutient<br />
que l’émergence de nouveaux mouvements sociaux, de même que la récente<br />
prééminence politique de groupes tels que les autochtones, marquent le point<br />
de départ d’une reformulation de la démocratie au Canada. Leurs positions et<br />
revendications particulières remettraient en cause le « déficit » démocratique<br />
que représentent la définition de la <strong>Constitution</strong> et l’opération des institutions<br />
intergouverne- mentales et partisanes. En fait, Jenson n’est pas loin de<br />
suggérer que ces nouveaux mouvements sociaux pourraient constituer les<br />
fondements d’une pratique élargie de la démocratie au Canada.<br />
Notre lecture de la situation n’est pas aussi enthousiaste que celle de Jenson.<br />
Sur la base des préoccupations exprimées devant les comités parlementaires,<br />
nous croyons plutôt que les revendications des nouveaux mouvements sociaux<br />
participent d’abord d’un désir de reconnaissance institutionnelle et ne<br />
remettent pas en cause les paramètres fondamentaux actuels du système<br />
politique et de la citoyenneté. D’après ce que nous avons pu déceler, rares sont<br />
les groupes qui essaient d’amener le débat sur le terrain d’une conception qui<br />
transcenderait leur intégration aux mécanismes institutionnels tels qu’ils<br />
existent à l’heure actuelle. Ainsi, ils ne remettent pas en question les<br />
fondements usuels de la citoyenneté et de la démocratie. Bien sûr, certains<br />
groupes se sont montrés fort critiques à l’endroit du mode de fonctionnement<br />
de la démocratie et ont souligné avec véhémence la faible participation de la<br />
population au processus constitutionnel. <strong>La</strong> mise en application de leurs<br />
suggestions aurait certes pour effet de modifier les institutions, mais en suivant<br />
toujours les principes de la démocratie parlementaire. De plus, leur volonté<br />
d’être entendus ou représentés, d’une manière ou d’une autre, à la table<br />
constitutionnelle, ne modifie que marginalement le fédéralisme exécutif et le<br />
recours à l’accommodation des élites comme lieu de prise de décision comme<br />
l’a pertinemment rappelé Smith (1991 : 80).<br />
Mais au-delà de ces critiques et de ces suggestions, les groupes et les nouveaux<br />
mouvements sociaux dont parle Jenson ont adopté une posture étroitement<br />
individualiste en cherchant simplement à obtenir la parité de leurs droits avec<br />
ceux des autres groupes. Leur conception de la citoyenneté se limite en fait à<br />
leur seule inclusion dans l’appareil institutionnel existant. Pire, leurs<br />
inquiétudes quant à la défense de leurs intérêts propres ne se manifestent bien<br />
souvent qu’en fonction des pertes ou des gains relatifs à la plus ou moins<br />
gr<strong>and</strong>e centralisation du fédéralisme canadien. Par exemple, les groupes de<br />
femmes considèrent souvent que le gouvernement fédéral offre de meilleures<br />
garanties de respect des principes d’universalité et d’accessibilité aux soins de<br />
santé que les provinces, d’où leur attachement à l’adoption de normes<br />
nationales (McLellan, 1992 : 10). Mais pour plusieurs, la réflexion s’arrête là.<br />
Toute la problématique est toujours posée selon l’axe traditionnel<br />
centralisation- décentralisation alors que le problème de la santé des femmes a<br />
un caractère éminemment social qui va au-delà des calculs renvoyant<br />
uniquement à la mécanique administrative et institutionnelle du partage des<br />
compétences. Ces questions sont, certes, pertinentes. Mais limiter la réflexion<br />
à ces seules balises réduit la complexité du problème et fait peu pour situer le<br />
débat à l’extérieur des institutions gouvernementales et partisanes comme le<br />
soutient Jenson. De plus, cette façon d’aborder la question ne contribue que<br />
marginalement à une redéfinition plus globale de la citoyenneté.<br />
176
Démocratie et réforme constitutionnelle :<br />
discours et pratique<br />
En raison de leur « obsession institutionnaliste, » les représentants des groupes<br />
et des nouveaux mouvements sociaux ne contribuent pas véritablement au<br />
changement de la culture politique qui assurerait un renouvellement de la<br />
pratique démocratique au Canada. Alors que ces groupes pourraient être le<br />
ferment de valeurs nouvelles à la base d’une citoyenneté et d’une pratique<br />
démocratique renouvelée, leurs actions et leurs intérêts respectifs semblent les<br />
diviser. En d’autres termes, la démarche privilégiée par certains groupes peut<br />
les amener à opposer leurs intérêts et leurs droits à ceux mis de l’avant par<br />
d’autres. Par exemple, on peut s’interroger sur la complémentarité entre la<br />
reconnaissance du principe de l’autonomie gouvernementale réclamée par les<br />
chefs autochtones et le respect des droits des femmes autochtones. Celles-ci<br />
n’avaient-elles pas dem<strong>and</strong>é un siège à la table constitutionnelle craignant<br />
l’édulcoration de leurs droits contenus dans la <strong>Charte</strong> ?<br />
L’attention des intervenants socio-politiques et des spécialistes qui se sont<br />
penchés sur notre problématique s’est essentiellement portée sur les modalités<br />
d’une participation accrue sans qu’il ne soit question des fondements<br />
théoriques de la <strong>Charte</strong>. En d’autres termes, les interrogations ne portent pas<br />
sur les valeurs qui l’animent, sinon pour reprendre les gr<strong>and</strong>s principes du<br />
libéralisme. Or, il nous faut nous dem<strong>and</strong>er si ces valeurs sont suffisantes pour<br />
garantir l’exercice d’une véritable démocratie. C’est maintenant cette question<br />
qui va faire l’objet de nos propos.<br />
Repenser la démocratie<br />
Selon la conception généralement acceptée dans les sociétés occidentales,<br />
l’exercice de la démocratie relève de la dimension politico-administrative de<br />
la vie sociale; la démocratie n’a de sens et d’existence propres qu’à travers les<br />
manifestations directes et indirectes des institutions parlementaires. <strong>La</strong><br />
démocratie est d’abord une question de droits politiques consentis aux<br />
individus et le progrès en la matière se mesure à l’aune de la protection qu’une<br />
société est prête à garantir à ces mêmes droits. <strong>La</strong> démocratie s’appuie ainsi sur<br />
les préceptes du libéralisme individualiste qui pose comme prémisses<br />
ontologiques fondamentales la défense et la promotion de la liberté<br />
individuelle. Elle participe d’un concept négatif de la liberté, puisque celle-ci<br />
apparaît d’abord comme l’absence de contraintes ou d’interférences<br />
extérieures à l’individu. Dans ce cadre, le rôle de l’État se limite à protéger<br />
l’individu contre les menaces à sa liberté et surtout contre toute atteinte à son<br />
droit inaliénable à la propriété privée. <strong>La</strong> tradition libérale en ce domaine ne se<br />
préoccupe guère d’objectifs de coopération, de justice ou d’égalité sociale;<br />
légiférer de tels objectifs porterait ombrage à la liberté que doit avoir l’individu<br />
de faire ses propres choix.<br />
L’émergence de l’État-providence et la primauté accrue accordée à la<br />
promotion de l’égalité socio-économique ont démontré en un sens<br />
l’inadéquation d’une application stricte du libéralisme individualiste à la<br />
démocratie. L’expérience welfariste des sociétés occidentales au cours des<br />
quarante ou cinquante dernières années prouve que la démocratie se joue aussi<br />
en dehors des frontières de la sphère politique. Les revendications constantes<br />
pour la reconnaissance de droits sociaux et économiques, les luttes pour<br />
l’égalité non pas simplement politique mais aussi sociale montrent que pour<br />
plusieurs, la démocratie n’est pas qu’affaire de droits politiques et de libertés<br />
civiles. Au cours des années récentes, plusieurs penseurs ont remis en question<br />
les principes traditionnels de fonctionnement de la démocratie libérale. Non<br />
seulement s’inscrivent-ils souvent en faux contre l’adéquation qui est<br />
177
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
généralement faite entre libéralisme et démocratie ou encore entre<br />
parlementarisme et démocratie (Mouffe, 1992a; 1992b), mais encore ils<br />
cherchent à déborder les confins institutionnels étroits dans lesquels on<br />
enferme aussi l’exercice de la démocratie. On s’oriente ainsi vers une<br />
reconceptualisation plus globale, plus sociétale de la démocratie (<strong>La</strong>bica,<br />
1992) qui permettrait la création d’espaces publics de participation qui ne<br />
tiendrait pas seulement aux critères de la représentation, mais aussi et peut-être<br />
surtout au désir d’inclusion sociale et économique. Cette vision « alternative »<br />
ne cherche pas la reviviscence de la démocratie dans le remaniement<br />
cosmétique des institutions en place, elle lie le renouvellement de la<br />
démocratie à la reconfiguration du rapport salarial, à la transformation des<br />
rapports sociaux, au recul des hiérarchies, au respect de l’égalité dans la<br />
différence et à la mise en place de nouvelles formes de solidarité et de<br />
mécanismes de représentation plus organiques (Lipietz, 1992 : 283-284). Bref,<br />
le renouvellement de la démocratie tiendrait dans la capacité des sociétés<br />
modernes d’opter pour une remise en question du paradigme démocratique<br />
dominant.<br />
Dans la pratique sociale, le plein développement de la démocratie n’est<br />
possible que si l’on consent à en camper l’exercice, par-delà le formalisme<br />
parlementaire et représentatif, dans le champ beaucoup plus global et généreux<br />
d’un dialogue ouvert entre tous ceux et celles dont l’épanouissement personnel<br />
est à la merci des conditions sociales et matérielles. Or, il ne peut y avoir<br />
épanouissement de la personne sans coopération sociale, sans solidarité entre<br />
les individus, sans réciprocité; c’est un préalable. <strong>La</strong> garantie sociale d’un<br />
bien-être matériel et moral pour tous sans exception représente la condition<br />
nécessaire à l’épanouissement de la personne et, de manière concomitante, à<br />
l’expansion de la démocratie (Gould, 1988; Guttman, 1988; Doyal et Gough,<br />
1991).<br />
Le projet démocratique exige l’égalité entre les individus. Il ne s’agit pas ici<br />
d’une égalité formelle ou de principe, mais d’une égalité d’accès aux<br />
conditions sociales et matérielles d’épanouissement individuel. Le droit égal<br />
pour tous de participer aux décisions relatives aux activités communes liées à<br />
l’épanouissement individuel doit constituer une facette incontournable de la<br />
démocratie. Ces aires communes de décision ne relèvent pas seulement du<br />
domaine politique; elles doivent aussi s’insérer dans tous les domaines de la<br />
vie sociale et économique. Vivre la démocratie, c’est donc dépasser la tyrannie<br />
de la majorité pour aller vers des formes plus consensuelles où les minoritaires<br />
ne sont pas exclus d’emblée des choix de société. C’est également travailler à<br />
combler les écarts socio-économiques qui éloignent et polarisent les divers<br />
segments de la société. Vivre la démocratie, c’est penser une société fondée sur<br />
le partage des biens, des obligations et du savoir, une société axée sur la<br />
possibilité offerte à tous de participer aux mécanismes du devenir collectif.<br />
Vivre la démocratie, c’est finalement investir l’espace public et exercer<br />
pleinement les responsabilités de la citoyenneté.<br />
Mais de quelle citoyenneté s’agit-il ? L’idée de citoyenneté a historiquement<br />
été élaborée et comprise dans son sens universel et général. Elle repose d’abord<br />
et avant tout sur la présence de traits communs, presque toujours<br />
institutionnels, auxquels peuvent s’identifier les agents sociaux, sans égard à<br />
ce qui les différencie. L’universalisme du concept classique de souveraineté<br />
conduit à la mise en place de lois et de règles socio-institutionnelles qui se<br />
répercutent sur tous et chacun indistinctement. Les lois et les règles qui<br />
émanent de la citoyenneté traditionnelle ne tiennent pas compte des<br />
178
Démocratie et réforme constitutionnelle :<br />
discours et pratique<br />
particularités individuelles et des différences socio-économiques qui<br />
distinguent et opposent même les agents et les groupes sociaux. Dans son<br />
acception actuelle, la citoyenneté équivaut ni plus ni moins à un déni de<br />
l’existence de réalités sociales multiples. Le véritable défi de la réflexion sur la<br />
démocratie à l’aube du 21e siècle consiste à penser la citoyenneté non plus<br />
comme un idéal universel et général — essentiellement défini par les classes<br />
dominantes et auquel tous se doivent d’adhérer — mais bien comme un<br />
objectif politique tangible qui viserait à donner la parole aux groupes socioéconomiques<br />
qui ont été historiquement exclus du processus socio-politique et<br />
des mécanismes institutionnels et administratifs et qui continuent d’être<br />
relégués à la marge des lieux de pouvoir et laissés pour compte dans<br />
l’élaboration de projets de société (Young, 1990).<br />
En clair, il ne saurait y avoir de projet véritablement démocratique sans<br />
solidarité ni réciprocité, mais surtout sans l’apport de tous à la définition de<br />
l’architecture sociale et de l’économie générale de la société. Les sociétés<br />
libérales se sont toujours cachées derrière l’illusion rassurante qu’offre la<br />
représentation parlementaire : l’exercice régulier du droit de vote n’est-il pas la<br />
preuve la plus tangible, le signe le plus irrévocable de la citoyenneté ? Rien<br />
n’est moins clair aujourd’hui alors que le processus électoral se confond bien<br />
souvent avec pratique civique ritualisée, passive et sans substance. Le système<br />
électoral simule la citoyenneté; il ne permet pas l’engagement direct et critique<br />
de l’électorat au processus de formulation et de discussion des politiques<br />
publiques. Certes, le pluralisme bon teint dont se targuent les sociétés libérales<br />
offre l’image d’une démocratie sereine et enviable. Dans les faits, la<br />
consultation, par élection ou sondage, des citoyens participe de l’illusion<br />
démocratique. Non seulement reconduit-elle, quelle que soit sa forme, le<br />
système socio-politique dans toute sa conformité, jamais elle ne fait vraiment<br />
participer le citoyen. Spectacles orchestrés par des élites socio-économiques<br />
qui ne cherchent qu’à assurer leur propre dominance sociale et politique, ces<br />
coups de sonde ne servent plus qu’à entretenir l’impression de la démocratie<br />
auprès de populations repoussées à la marge et que l’on entend surtout<br />
maintenir là. Et ainsi se reproduit le cercle vicieux du désengagement politique<br />
: éventuellement persuadées qu’il leur est impossible d’agir sur le système, ces<br />
populations ne voient plus l’utilité de s’informer et de revoir la légitimité du<br />
système; leur apathie et leur ignorance confirment en bout de piste l’idée<br />
qu’entretiennent les élites politiques au sujet de l’incapacité du peuple à se<br />
gouverner lui-même (Lyon, 1992 : 125).<br />
Au Canada, fédéralisme et démocratie sont généralement associés. On sait<br />
aujourd’hui que l’un n’est pas garant de l’autre (Whitaker, 1992) et qu’ici, ils<br />
ne l’ont jamais été. Pourtant, l’on persiste à penser que le fédéralisme à la<br />
canadienne est porteur de démocratie. <strong>La</strong> crise constitutionnelle actuelle<br />
reflète en gr<strong>and</strong>e partie l’insatisfaction croissante face à la nature même du<br />
régime démocratique que prétend être le fédéralisme canadien. <strong>La</strong> gr<strong>and</strong>e<br />
problématique qui ressort des différentes consultations relatives à la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> porte dans presque tous les cas sur l’inadéquation ressentie par les<br />
individus, les groupes ou les associations des mécanismes de représentation et<br />
d’inclusion dans les processus décisionnels. Que ce soit pour des questions de<br />
représentativité territoriale, ethnique, linguistique, sociale, économique ou<br />
sexuelle, les doléances de tous et chacun témoignent de l’incapacité du<br />
fédéralisme canadien et des institutions parlementaires qui le soutiennent<br />
d’assurer une place et un rôle équivalents dans la formulation des politiques<br />
179
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
publiques et des décisions politico-administratives qui influent sur la vie des<br />
citoyens.<br />
À certains égards, le processus de fragmentation du tissu social et la tendance<br />
vraisemblablement irrévocable à la personnalisation du social (Lipovetsky,<br />
1983) qui caractérisent la dynamique sociétale de cette fin de siècle sonnent le<br />
glas des institutions politiques traditionnelles. L’emprise croissante sur le<br />
discours politique des revendications en faveur des droits individuels et la<br />
multiplication des regroupements d’êtres identiques pour la reconnaissance<br />
publique de leur différence ou simplement pour partager leur vécu rend<br />
obsolète un système politique comme celui du Canada, attaché qu’il reste à<br />
l’idée d’un État territorial souverain et centralisé.<br />
Dans un tel contexte de transformation des valeurs, des normes et des<br />
paramètres de la vie sociale, le système politique devient inapte à répondre aux<br />
exigences et aux attentes d’une partie croissante de la population. Au Canada,<br />
cela se vérifie d’autant plus que la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 a donné voix<br />
aux chapitre aux groupes et aux individus qui avaient été historiquement<br />
exclus du processus politique. Forts de la caution juridique que leur offre la<br />
<strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits et libertés, ceux-ci exigent plus que jamais la<br />
reconnaissance de leur différence et de leur particularité, exerçant du même<br />
coup des pressions auxquelles ni le système politique ni les élites ne peuvent<br />
donner suite (Cairns, 1988; Rocher et Salée, 1991; Whitaker, 1992). Force est<br />
de constater que la structure institutionnelle et administrative du fédéralisme<br />
canadien est en train de céder parce qu’elle est de plus en plus inapte à combler<br />
les aspirations démocratiques suscitées à la fois par la nouvelle donne imposée<br />
par la <strong>Charte</strong>, le mouvement général de personnalisation du social et la<br />
redéfinition concomitante de la citoyenneté.<br />
<strong>La</strong> tradition théorique qui anime le système politique canadien (c’est celle en<br />
fait sur laquelle se fonde toute la conceptualisation de l’organisation politique<br />
en Occident et qui puise dans la pensée des Bodin, Hobbes et Machiavel) est<br />
ancrée dans la conviction que la fonction de régie (governance) est l’objet<br />
privilégié du politique. Suivant cette optique, l’élaboration de projets de<br />
société passe d’abord par la mise au point des mécanismes de régie; les<br />
impératifs de la raison d’État conditionnent et stabilisent la société. Or, vivre la<br />
démocratie en ces temps de fragmentation sociale, c’est tenter de dépasser<br />
cette vision du politique qui n’a de sens finalement qu’en contexte de gr<strong>and</strong>e<br />
homogénéité sociale. Vivre la démocratie, c’est tenter de réorganiser la société<br />
non plus en fonction du pouvoir de l’État et d’un idéal institutionnel et<br />
instrumental, mais bien en fonction de la société elle-même, c’est-à-dire des<br />
réalités multiples et variées qui la composent et des volontés d’autonomie qui<br />
la traversent (Hueglin, 1992). Ces questions n’ont malheureusement pas<br />
alimenté le débat sur le nécessaire arrimage entre la transformation de la<br />
pratique démocratique et la transformation des mécanismes de négociations<br />
constitutionnelles au cours des dernières années.<br />
On peut d’ailleurs se permettre d’être sceptique quant à la possibilité<br />
d’enregistrer à plus ou moins long terme quelque progrès à cet égard , tant et<br />
aussi longtemps que l’on continuera d’agir à l’intérieur des mécanismes<br />
institutionnels actuels.<br />
Au-delà des raisons particulières et souvent partisanes qui ont poussé une<br />
majorité de Canadiens à rejeter l’entente de Charlottetown, l’issue du<br />
référendum d’octobre 1992 traduit aussi un désaccord populaire assez profond<br />
face au processus même de révision constitutionnelle, un certain cynisme<br />
180
Démocratie et réforme constitutionnelle :<br />
discours et pratique<br />
quant au potentiel de développement démocratique qu’aurait pu contenir une<br />
telle révision, de même qu’un désenchantement à peine voilé face à la classe<br />
politique canadienne. Il serait étonnant que le débat constitutionnel soit<br />
rouvert dans un avenir rapproché. Les tribulations constitutionnelles et<br />
référendaires des dernières années ont conduit à l’écoeurement politique des<br />
Canadiens qui, à court terme tout au moins, refuseront de s’interroger<br />
sérieusement à propos de leur système politique ou des tenants et aboutissants<br />
de la démocratie. En attendant, le problème reste entier.<br />
En dernière analyse, ce que démontre le rejet de l’entente de Charlottetown et,<br />
avant cela, l’échec de l’Accord du lac Meech, c’est bien l’épuisement, voire la<br />
faillite, du modèle traditionnel des relations fédérales-provinciales pour<br />
solutionner les problèmes inhérents à la dynamique de la société civile. Il y a<br />
peut-être là un mal pour un bien. <strong>La</strong> défaite référendaire vient en quelque sorte<br />
confirmer ce qu’Alan Cairns a si finement identifié comme la nonconcordance,<br />
provoquée par la constitutionnalisation de la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne<br />
des droits et libertés, entre deux logiques contradictoires : celle des citoyens<br />
désormais détenteurs de droits et drapés de prétention multiples et<br />
polymorphes à la différence; et celle des gouvernements, gestionnaires<br />
historiques et souverains de l’expression des droits individuels et des<br />
revendications communautaires. Ces deux logiques comm<strong>and</strong>ent des<br />
mécanismes institutionnels opposés et, somme toute, irréconciliables (Cairns,<br />
1992b). Le drame de l’histoire constitutionnelle canadienne récente tient dans<br />
cet entêtement à arrimer l’une et l’autre logique, et même parfois la tentation<br />
d’imposer l’une à l’autre. Le référendum de 1992 enseigne finalement que cet<br />
arrimage est impossible et qu’il faut chercher ailleurs.<br />
<strong>La</strong> question demeure ouverte : où chercher ? <strong>La</strong> forme et la cohérence<br />
institutionnelle de l’État participent toujours plus ou moins des modulations<br />
particulières de la société civile, bien que dans certaines conjonctures<br />
historiques, il arrive que l’État imprime à celle-ci ses propres paramètres. En<br />
instaurant une mouvance politique désormais fondée sur les droits, la réforme<br />
constitutionnelle de 1982 a remis en quelque sorte la société civile à l’avantscène.<br />
<strong>La</strong> dynamique politique s’accomplit de plus en plus dans l’interface<br />
entre des citoyens parés de leurs droits distinctifs, individuels et<br />
collectifs—droits des femmes contre ceux des hommes, droits des<br />
Autochtonnes et des minorités visibles contre ceux de la majorité blanche.<br />
C’est dans ce registre nouveau et inhabituel pour la culture politique<br />
canadienne que s’expriment maintenant les prétentions à la citoyenneté et que<br />
d’aucuns entendent jeter les fondations d’une démocratie élargie, inclusive,<br />
cherchant à équilibrer la reconnaissance des droits individuels universels à la<br />
nécessaire reconnaissance des particularismes.<br />
Tout n’est pas réglé pour autant. Si l’échec référendaire a démontré les limites<br />
de l’hégémonie institutionnelle du fédéralisme canadien et annoncé la<br />
réaffirmation de la société civile, cela ne garantit pas une redéfinition<br />
institutionnelle idéale exempte de conflits. Dans le contexte actuel où les droits<br />
individuels dominent de plus en plus le discours politique, l’unanimité devient<br />
presque impossible, puisque tout est contestable et qu’il n’existe plus de<br />
rationalité unique et universelle.<br />
Pour certains, le processus de personnalisation, évoqué plus haut, constitue un<br />
premier pas vers le renouveau démocratique des sociétés occidentales, la<br />
garantie de l’essentielle remise en question des consensus (Lipovetsky, 1983 :<br />
183 et sq.). Certes, on peut espérer, à la façon de certains philosophes libéraux<br />
181
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
communautariens, que, puisque la production de l’identité subjective résulte<br />
du désir humain de reconnaissance par les autres, et donc d’un nécessaire<br />
dialogue, le respect des identités individuelles et des différences débouche sur<br />
une société inévitablement plus démocratique où chacun est ouvert à l’autre,<br />
où les identités individuelles s’épanouissent par le dialogue collectif et une<br />
conception unanimement partagée de la communauté (Taylor, 1992).<br />
Dans la réalité, la glorification actuelle des droits individuels et l’obsession<br />
juridique qui l’alimente reposent sur une vision atomiste du social — vision<br />
décriée avec conviction par les philosophes communautariens, Taylor en tête<br />
— où chaque être est une île autosuffisante qui ne doit rien à la communauté.<br />
Dans un tel contexte, le dialogue est forcément, et plus souvent qu’autrement,<br />
un dialogue de sourds. Une juriste américaine observait récemment qu’aux<br />
États-Unis, la primauté accordée aux droits individuels dans le discours<br />
politique avait conduit à une situation qui<br />
in its absoluteness, promotes unrealistic expectations, heightens<br />
social conflict, <strong>and</strong> inhibits dialogue that might lead toward<br />
consensus, accommodation, or at least <strong>the</strong> discovery of common<br />
ground. In its silence concerning responsibilities, [rights talk] seems<br />
to condone acceptance of <strong>the</strong> benefits of living in a democratic social<br />
welfare state, without accepting <strong>the</strong> corresponding personal <strong>and</strong> civic<br />
obligations. In its relentless individualism, it fosters a climate that is<br />
inhospitable to society’s losers, <strong>and</strong> that systematically<br />
disadvantages caretakers <strong>and</strong> dependents, young <strong>and</strong> old (...). We<br />
make it difficult for persons <strong>and</strong> groups with conflicting interests <strong>and</strong><br />
views to build a coalition <strong>and</strong> achieve compromise, or even to acquire<br />
that minimal degree of mutual forbearance <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing that<br />
promotes peaceful coexistence <strong>and</strong> keeps <strong>the</strong> door open to fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
communication (Glendon, 1991 : 14-15).<br />
Sans doute que le Canada n’en est pas rendu là. Mais comme le donne à penser<br />
le rejet de l’entente de Charlottetown, l’incapacité à définir les conditions<br />
minimales de coexistence des identités plurielles laisse croire que le processus<br />
est déjà bien amorcé.<br />
Comme nous l’avons indiqué plus haut, seule la reviviscence des liens<br />
fondamentaux de solidarité communautaire et de réciprocité peut stopper ce<br />
glissement. Mais entre pareille exhortation normative et la réalité, un fossé<br />
semble se creuser dont personne ne peut prédire l’ampleur, ni même s’il ira en<br />
s’élargissant. Tout dépendra de la dynamique sociétale que les Canadiens se<br />
forgeront.<br />
Notes<br />
1. Nous tenons à remercier Michel Sarra-Bournet qui nous a assistés dans la phase préliminaire<br />
de la recherche.<br />
Bibliographie<br />
Barrie, Doreen (1988), « Who Spoke for Canada ? » dans Roger Gibbins (dir.), Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong><br />
Canada. Perspectives from <strong>the</strong> West, Edmonton, Academic Printing <strong>and</strong> Publishing,<br />
pp. 143-146.<br />
Behiels, Michael D., (dir.), (1989), <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Primer. Conflicting Views on <strong>the</strong> 1987<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Accord, Ottawa, Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.<br />
182
Démocratie et réforme constitutionnelle :<br />
discours et pratique<br />
Breton, Gilles et Jane Jenson (1991), « After Free Trade <strong>and</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke: Quoi de neuf ? »,<br />
Studies in Political Economy, n o 34, Spring, pp. 199-218.<br />
Brock, Kathy L. (1991), « <strong>The</strong> Politics of Process » dans Douglas M. Brown, (dir.), Canada: <strong>The</strong><br />
State of <strong>the</strong> Federation 1991, Kingston, Institut des relations intergouvernementales, pp. 57-<br />
87.<br />
Cairns, Alan C. (1988), « Citizens (Outsiders) <strong>and</strong> Governments (Insiders) in <strong>Constitution</strong>-<br />
Making: <strong>The</strong> Case of Meech <strong>La</strong>ke », Canadian Public Policy, vol. 15, september, pp. S121-<br />
S145.<br />
Cairns, Alan C. (1991), « <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, Interest Groups, Executive <strong>Federalism</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Reform » dans David E. Smith et al., After Meech <strong>La</strong>ke. Lessons for <strong>the</strong> Future, Saskatoon,<br />
Fifth House, pp. 13-31.<br />
Cairns, Alan C. (1992a), <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al World We Have Lost, communication présentée au<br />
congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de science politique, Charlottetown, University<br />
of Prince Edward Isl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
Cairns, Alan C. (1992b), <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Versus <strong>Federalism</strong>. <strong>The</strong> Dilemmas of <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform,<br />
Montréal et Kingston, Mc-Gill-Queen’s University Press.<br />
Canada (1987), Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Comité mixte spécial du Sénat et de la<br />
Chambre des communes de L’entente constitutionnelle de 1987, Ottawa, 17 fascicules.<br />
Canada (1991a), Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Comité mixte spécial du Sénat et de la<br />
Chambre des communes sur le Processus de modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong> du Canada,<br />
Ottawa, 34 fascicules.<br />
Canada (1991b), Le processus de modification de la <strong>Constitution</strong>, Rapport du comité mixte spécial<br />
du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes, Ottawa.<br />
Canada (1992), Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Comité mixte spécial sur Le renouvellement du<br />
Canada, Ottawa, 65 fascicules.<br />
Dobell, Peter et Byron Berry (1992), « <strong>La</strong> colère à l’égard du régime : mécontentement politique<br />
au Canada », Le gouvernement parlementaire, n o 39, janvier, pp. 3-22.<br />
Doyal, Len et Ian Gough (1991), A <strong>The</strong>ory of Human Need, New York, <strong>The</strong> Guilford Press.<br />
Fortin, Sarah (1992), Le discours démocratique et l’enjeu constitutionnel, Montréal, inédit.<br />
Glendon, Mary Ann (1991), Rights Talk. <strong>The</strong> Impoverishment of Political Discourse, New York,<br />
Free Press.<br />
Guttman, Amy, dir., (1988), Democracy <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Welfare State, Princeton, Princeton University<br />
Press.<br />
Maillé, Chantal (1992), <strong>La</strong> réforme constitutionnelle pensée dans une perspective féministe :<br />
quelques remarques préliminaires à un débat à venir, communication présentée à<br />
l’Association canadienne droit et société, Congrès des sociétés savantes, Charlottetown.<br />
McLellan, A. Anne (1992), « Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Process of <strong>Constitution</strong>-Making » dans D.<br />
Schneiderman (dir.), Conversations. Among Friends « » Entre Amies, Proceedings of an<br />
Interdisciplinary Conference on Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform, Edmonton, Centre for<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Studies, Alberta <strong>La</strong>w Fondation, pp. 9-13.<br />
Gould, Carol C. (1988), Rethinking Democracy. Freedom <strong>and</strong> Social Cooperation in Politics,<br />
Economy, <strong>and</strong> Society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<br />
Hueglin, Thomas (1992), « Have We Studied <strong>the</strong> Wrong Authors? On <strong>the</strong> Relevance of Johannes<br />
Althusius », Studies in Political Thought, vol. 1, n o 1, Winter, pp. 75-93.<br />
Jenson, Jane (1992), Citizenship Claims: Routes to Representation in a Federal System, paper<br />
presented for <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nation State Conference, Centre for International Studies,<br />
University of Toronto, June.<br />
<strong>La</strong>bica, Georges (1992), « Pour une nouvelle rationalité politique » dans Boismenu et al.(dir.), Les<br />
formes modernes de la démocratie, Montréal et Paris, Presses de l’Université de Montréal et<br />
L’Harmattan, pp. 53-65.<br />
Lipietz, Alain (1992), « Bases pour une alternative démocratique », dans Boismenu et al., (dir.),<br />
Les formes modernes de la démocratie, Montréal et Paris, Presses de l’Université de<br />
Montréal et L’Harmattan, pp. 275-296.<br />
Lipovetsky, Gilles (1983), L’ère du vide. Essais sur l’individualisme contemporain, Paris,<br />
Gallimard.<br />
Lyon, Vaughan (1992), « Stalemated Democracy—<strong>the</strong> Canadian Case », Revue d’études<br />
canadiennes, vol. 26, n o 3, pp. 120-139.<br />
Mouffe, Chantal (1992a), « Penser la démocratie moderne avec, et contre, Carl Schmitt », Revue<br />
française de science politique, vol. 42, n o 1 février, pp. 83-96.<br />
Mouffe, Chantal (1992b), Dimensions of Radical Democracy. Pluralism, Citizenship,<br />
Community, Londres, Verso.<br />
Panitch, Leo (1991), « Démocratie et <strong>Constitution</strong> », Le gouvernement parlementaire, vol. 10,<br />
n o 1, pp. 19-20.<br />
Rocher, François et Daniel Salée (1991), « <strong>Charte</strong> et société : vers un nouvel ordre politique<br />
canadien ? », Revue québécoise de science politique, n o 20, automne, pp. 35-64.<br />
Silipo, Tony (1991), « S’ouvrir aux nouvelles réalités », Le gouvernement parlementaire, vol. 10,<br />
n o 1, pp. 11-13.<br />
183
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
Smith, Jennifer (1991), « Representation <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform in Canada » dans David E.<br />
Smith et al., After Meech <strong>La</strong>ke. Lessons for <strong>the</strong> Future, Saskatoon, Fifth House, pp. 69-82.<br />
Taylor, Charles (1992), Multiculturalism <strong>and</strong> “<strong>The</strong> Politics of Recognition”, Princeton, N.J.,<br />
Princeton University Press.<br />
Whitaker, Reg (1992), A Sovereign Idea. Essays on Canada as a Democratic Community,<br />
Montréal et Kingston, McGill-Queen’s University Press.<br />
Young, Iris Marion (1990), « Polity <strong>and</strong> Group Difference: A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Ideal of Universal<br />
Citizenship » dans Cass R. Sunstein, (dir.), Feminism & Political <strong>The</strong>ory, Chicago,<br />
University of Chicago Press, pp. 117-141.<br />
184
Stephen McBride<br />
Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong> as an Instrument of<br />
Competitiveness: Liberal Political Economy <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong> *<br />
Abstract<br />
This article examines attempts by Canada’s Conservative government to<br />
introduce proposals based on <strong>the</strong> principles of liberal political economy into a<br />
constitutional renewal process driven by o<strong>the</strong>r issues. From <strong>the</strong> viewpoint of<br />
liberal political economy, a suitably renewed <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> federal system<br />
could serve as an instrument of economic success <strong>and</strong> competitiveness. <strong>The</strong><br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, <strong>the</strong> government’s 1991 constitutional proposals, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord are analyzed. <strong>The</strong> article concludes that although<br />
Canada’s ongoing constitutional crisis provided an opportunity for <strong>the</strong><br />
introduction of this type of constitutional proposal, o<strong>the</strong>r aspects of Canada’s<br />
political system—political culture <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> federal system itself—have<br />
obstructed <strong>the</strong> government’s agenda. <strong>The</strong> rejection of Charlottetown was, in<br />
this respect, less decisive than <strong>the</strong> dilution of <strong>the</strong> government’s proposals that<br />
had occurred earlier in <strong>the</strong> process.<br />
Résumé<br />
Cet article porte sur les tentatives du gouvernement conservateur canadien de<br />
profiter du processus de révision de la <strong>Constitution</strong> pour faire adopter des<br />
propositions fondées sur les principes de l’économie politique libérale. Dans<br />
l’optique de cette dernière, un renouvellement efficace de la <strong>Constitution</strong> et du<br />
régime fédéral pouvait favoriser l’essor et le compétitivité du pays. Après<br />
avoir passé en revue l’Accord du lac Meech, les propositions<br />
constitutionnelles de 1991 ainsi que l’Accord de Charlottetown, l’auteur en<br />
arrive à la conclusion que le débat constitutionnel en cours offrait<br />
manifestement une bonne occasion de soumettre un tel projet, mais d’autres<br />
aspects de la situation politique canadienne — la culture politique et le régime<br />
fédéral lui-même — ont fait avorter le programme gouvernemental. Le rejet de<br />
l’Accord de Charlottetown a été moins déterminant que les modifications qu’il<br />
a subies au cours des négociations antérieures.<br />
Liberal Political Economy <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
<strong>The</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> Keynesian era has stimulated a renewed interest in <strong>the</strong><br />
connection between economic doctrines <strong>and</strong> political programs. <strong>The</strong><br />
conservative, or neo-conservative, political parties that have benefited from<br />
Keynesianism’s failure to deal with <strong>the</strong> problems created by an increasingly<br />
internationalized economy have become much more doctrinaire organizations<br />
than <strong>the</strong>ir pragmatic predecessors of <strong>the</strong> 1950s <strong>and</strong> 1960s. Despite <strong>the</strong> neo-<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
conservative label, however, <strong>the</strong> doctrine <strong>the</strong>y espouse consists of a<br />
refurbished version of classical liberal political economy.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is a large literature on <strong>the</strong> policy agenda of various neo-conservative<br />
governments. Much has been written on <strong>the</strong> policy impact of <strong>the</strong> economic<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory which inspires <strong>the</strong>se parties. Thatcher’s Britain <strong>and</strong> Reagan’s America<br />
are seen as laboratories in which liberal political economy has been applied.<br />
Perhaps because of <strong>the</strong> emphasis on <strong>the</strong>se two countries, much less has been<br />
written about <strong>the</strong> constitutional impact of liberal political economy; nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Mrs. Thatcher nor Mr. Reagan were great constitutional innovators. Nor were<br />
<strong>the</strong>y leaders of countries in which constitutional politics plays a great role.<br />
Yet liberal political economy has much to say about <strong>the</strong> “good constitution”<br />
<strong>and</strong> its potential role in facilitating such economic ends as competitiveness. In<br />
Canada, which has been in <strong>the</strong> throes of constitutional crisis <strong>and</strong> debate for<br />
quite some time, a greater opportunity existed to take action on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>. Canada’s own neo-conservatives may have had to play second<br />
fiddle to <strong>the</strong>ir more renowned foreign cousins in many areas, but in attempting<br />
to constitutionalize <strong>the</strong> principles of liberal political economy <strong>the</strong>y have been<br />
in <strong>the</strong> vanguard. This article explores <strong>the</strong>ir efforts.<br />
Liberal political economy’s response to economic globalization <strong>and</strong><br />
intensifying competitive pressures is to downsize <strong>the</strong> state <strong>and</strong> liberate market<br />
forces from its regulatory constraints. Restraint <strong>and</strong> retrenchment of state<br />
activity can, of course, be accomplished without constitutional change. <strong>The</strong><br />
role of <strong>the</strong> state may simply be reduced by normal political processes.<br />
However, <strong>the</strong>re is a corresponding danger that such processes will, in a later<br />
period, lead to an expansion of <strong>the</strong> state’s role—thus reversing <strong>the</strong> neoconservative<br />
revolution. Hence, <strong>the</strong> possibility of rendering <strong>the</strong> neoconservative<br />
assault on <strong>the</strong> state’s role permanent, through constitutional<br />
change, has its attractions.<br />
A number of analysts have noted <strong>the</strong> challenge posed for all nation-states by<br />
<strong>the</strong> growing power of transnational corporations <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> markets in which <strong>the</strong>y<br />
operate (eg. Simeon 1991:47-9). And, in light of Canada’s free trade solution<br />
to <strong>the</strong>se pressures, it is worth noting <strong>the</strong> widespread perception that North<br />
American integration <strong>and</strong> Canadian disintegration are directly correlated (eg.<br />
Simeon 1991:51; <strong>and</strong> Watkins quoted in Norman, 1991:27). <strong>The</strong> impact of<br />
globalization on Canada’s political system has increased <strong>the</strong> constitutional<br />
strains generated by Canada’s internal <strong>and</strong> idiosyncratic cleavages based on<br />
language <strong>and</strong> region.<br />
Thus, <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> institutional arrangements of <strong>the</strong> country are unsettled<br />
has provided an opportunity for Canadian neo-conservatives that has been<br />
denied <strong>the</strong>ir colleagues in o<strong>the</strong>r countries. Even though <strong>the</strong> process of<br />
constitutional change itself has been driven by a different agenda, expressed in<br />
<strong>the</strong> discourse of Quebec’s dem<strong>and</strong>s, provincial powers, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> dissatisfaction<br />
of regions, it has been possible for neo-conservatives to initiate constitutional<br />
reforms that reflect <strong>the</strong>ir political <strong>and</strong> economic agenda.<br />
Indeed, according to Jenson (1989, 1990), <strong>the</strong> connection between <strong>the</strong> two<br />
constitutional agendas may be more intimate than suggested by this<br />
discussion. This is because “<strong>the</strong> paradigm which helped to stabilize <strong>the</strong> fordist<br />
mode of regulation in Canada after World War II was organized around<br />
national identities... <strong>The</strong> social compromises <strong>and</strong> institutionalized<br />
relationships of <strong>the</strong> welfare state were rationalized in terms of <strong>the</strong> needs of <strong>the</strong><br />
188
Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong> as an Instrument of Competitiveness<br />
whole nation <strong>and</strong> of <strong>the</strong> federal system. <strong>The</strong>refore, when <strong>the</strong> fordist paradigm<br />
began to dissolve, it would do so around <strong>the</strong> issues of national existence <strong>and</strong><br />
proper state forms” (Jenson 1989:84). This is not <strong>the</strong> place to explore this<br />
insight in great depth, but <strong>the</strong>re is certainly a conjunction between <strong>the</strong><br />
development of a crisis in Canada’s institutions <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> opportunity to use <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> to bind <strong>the</strong> state to a role consistent with neo-conservative ends.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se ends include reducing <strong>the</strong> role of government generally, <strong>and</strong> in<br />
particular <strong>the</strong> welfare state (Marchak 1991: Chapter 5; Shields 1990; Whitaker<br />
1987), although students of actually existing neo-conservative governments<br />
have noted a tendency to condemn <strong>the</strong> state in <strong>the</strong>ory while simultaneously<br />
relying on a strong state in certain spheres of state activity. Given <strong>the</strong>se<br />
ambiguities, is it possible to identify a body of neo-conservative constitutional<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory which might serve as a benchmark in evaluating <strong>the</strong> Mulroney<br />
government’s constitutional initiatives?<br />
Three <strong>the</strong>mes may be emphasized. First, <strong>the</strong>re is a genuine desire to confine <strong>the</strong><br />
state to a much more restricted sphere of intervention in <strong>the</strong> economy <strong>and</strong><br />
social policy. While this might be accomplished by normal political activity, it<br />
is also possible to restrict <strong>the</strong> state’s role by constitutional provisions. By<br />
prohibiting <strong>the</strong> state from certain activities it can also be insulated from<br />
democratic pressures—a goal some have attributed to liberal political<br />
economy (Shields 1990:162). Second, however, <strong>the</strong> state must be sufficiently<br />
strong to confront <strong>and</strong> defeat <strong>the</strong> special interests that can be expected to<br />
defend <strong>the</strong> welfare state, to police <strong>and</strong> protect <strong>the</strong> market order, <strong>and</strong> to uphold<br />
authority in society. Finally, in federal political systems we may not find a<br />
permanent <strong>the</strong>oretical position in favour of assigning powers to a particular<br />
level of government, but in practice decentralization will be viewed in most<br />
cases as more likely to lead to “less government in general <strong>and</strong> less<br />
redistributive activity in particular” (Boadway 1992:3).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se guidelines provide a profile of <strong>the</strong> constitutional preferences of liberal<br />
political economy. How are <strong>the</strong>se preferences connected to <strong>the</strong> basic economic<br />
strategy favoured by Canadian neo-conservatives? What kinds of specific<br />
constitutional proposals emerge from <strong>the</strong> conjunction of economic <strong>and</strong><br />
constitutional preferences?<br />
<strong>The</strong> interplay of economic strategies <strong>and</strong> constitutional preferences has been<br />
most comprehensively analyzed by Peter Leslie (1987: especially Chapter 9)<br />
who outlines <strong>the</strong> constitutional <strong>and</strong> political implications of three potential<br />
economic strategies. In one of <strong>the</strong>se, which he terms <strong>the</strong> liberal-continentalist<br />
option, minimal government intervention occurs <strong>and</strong> continental free trade<br />
obtains. It is <strong>the</strong> strategy recommended by <strong>the</strong> Macdonald Commission <strong>and</strong>, in<br />
broad terms, adopted by <strong>the</strong> Mulroney government. What are <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional correlates of this option?<br />
Although liberal political economy generally favours a reduced role for <strong>the</strong><br />
state in <strong>the</strong> economy <strong>and</strong> in social policy, it is often necessary to assign matters<br />
to one or o<strong>the</strong>r level of government given <strong>the</strong> constitutional principle of <strong>the</strong><br />
supremacy of Parliament. In general this will lead to a preference for a<br />
decentralization of powers to <strong>the</strong> provinces. An alternative approach would be<br />
to exp<strong>and</strong> those elements in <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong> which prohibit ei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
order of government from undertaking certain activities. One might <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
look for some combination of limits on federal powers <strong>and</strong> transfer of<br />
jurisdictions to <strong>the</strong> provinces. Through decentralization <strong>and</strong> deference to <strong>the</strong><br />
market, <strong>the</strong> ideal of a limited <strong>and</strong> constrained state might be approximated.<br />
189
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
However, Leslie (1987:167-70) notes that even <strong>the</strong> liberal-continentalist<br />
option requires a strong state: “<strong>the</strong> market-enhancing policies advocated by<br />
<strong>the</strong> [Macdonald] commission are anything but anodyne in <strong>the</strong>ir constitutional<br />
effects. Indeed, <strong>the</strong>y dem<strong>and</strong> more extensive limitations on provincial powers<br />
than anything proposed by <strong>the</strong> federal government during <strong>the</strong> [earlier<br />
constitutional] negotiations” (Leslie 1987:24). For example, <strong>the</strong> divided<br />
jurisdiction over fiscal policy that is involved in any federal system of<br />
government opens <strong>the</strong> possibility that one level of government may use its<br />
fiscal powers to offset initiatives taken by <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. If a low tax <strong>and</strong> low<br />
spending policy is to prevail, some form of coordination would seem<br />
necessary. Similarly, for a truly free market to exist in Canada, a more<br />
complete economic union than that guaranteed by Section 121 of <strong>the</strong> British<br />
North America Act is necessary. Section 121 has not prevented <strong>the</strong> creation of<br />
barriers to interprovincial trade by both levels of government. Striking down<br />
such obstacles seems to require streng<strong>the</strong>ned national institutions. Finally, <strong>the</strong><br />
Macdonald Commission anticipated that <strong>the</strong> federal government’s lack of a<br />
treaty implementation power, where treaties touched areas of provincial<br />
jurisdiction, might make problematic <strong>the</strong> implementation of continental free<br />
trade with <strong>the</strong> United States (see Leslie 1987:108-9).<br />
Thus, <strong>the</strong> constitutional program of liberal political economy might include a<br />
general predeliction to weaken <strong>the</strong> powers of <strong>the</strong> central government,<br />
especially as far as economic <strong>and</strong> social intervention are concerned, toge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
with a selective streng<strong>the</strong>ning of <strong>the</strong> federal government’s ability to overcome<br />
interventionism by <strong>the</strong> provinces. One might expect also some reliance upon<br />
<strong>the</strong> American connection, as manifested in <strong>the</strong> Free Trade Agreement, to<br />
provide strong state support for a free market economy should domestic<br />
politics in Canada deny it. Among <strong>the</strong> chief supporters of such an agenda have<br />
been <strong>the</strong> business community, especially as represented by <strong>the</strong> Business<br />
Council on National Issues, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> mainstream of <strong>the</strong> economics profession,<br />
many of whose ideas found expression in <strong>the</strong> report of <strong>the</strong> Macdonald Royal<br />
Commission (Simeon 1987; Carmichael, Dobson, Lipsey 1986). O<strong>the</strong>r vocal<br />
supporters of <strong>the</strong> agenda include a range of think-tanks <strong>and</strong> research institutes<br />
associated with <strong>the</strong> business community (see, for example, Ernst 1992).<br />
Canadian Business <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>: Macdonald, Meech <strong>and</strong> Post-<br />
Meech<br />
<strong>The</strong> Macdonald Commission devoted most of <strong>the</strong> third volume of its report to<br />
political institutions <strong>and</strong> reforms to <strong>the</strong> political system. Many of its<br />
recommendations found <strong>the</strong>ir way, in one form or ano<strong>the</strong>r, into ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord or <strong>the</strong> federal government’s 1991 constitutional<br />
proposals, Shaping Canada’s Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r. <strong>The</strong> Macdonald Report (v.3,<br />
385-408) recommended Senate reform to enhance regional representation,<br />
recognition of <strong>the</strong> distinctive character of Quebec, a form of constitutional<br />
veto for Quebec, <strong>and</strong> opt-out rights with compensation to all provinces. <strong>The</strong><br />
existence of barriers within <strong>the</strong> Canadian economic union occupied <strong>the</strong><br />
attention of <strong>the</strong> Commissioners <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> report called for an amendment to<br />
extend <strong>the</strong> provisions of Section 121 to include services, <strong>and</strong> for a Code of<br />
Economic Conduct to help eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade in goods <strong>and</strong><br />
services. An intergovernmental agency to police <strong>the</strong> economic union was<br />
proposed <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Commission foresaw that if a Code of Economic Conduct<br />
were eventually made legally enforceable it would become “a regulatory<br />
agency ... that regulates governments” (v.3:393). <strong>The</strong> Commission also<br />
190
Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong> as an Instrument of Competitiveness<br />
recommended a constitutional amendment to make international treaties<br />
enforceable, even when <strong>the</strong>ir substance lay in areas of provincial jurisdiction,<br />
subject to <strong>the</strong> proviso that <strong>the</strong> relevant sections of <strong>the</strong> treaties be approved by<br />
<strong>the</strong> legislatures of seven provinces containing 50 percent of <strong>the</strong> population.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Commission stopped short of recommending formal limitations on <strong>the</strong><br />
federal spending power, but felt its future use ought to be subject to conditions<br />
<strong>and</strong> guidelines.<br />
Some of <strong>the</strong> Commission’s thinking found its way into <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
Accord. Both were supported by <strong>the</strong> Business Council (BCNI 1990). <strong>The</strong><br />
Accord’s demise, though regrettable to business among o<strong>the</strong>rs, did provide an<br />
opportunity to initiate a new constitutional round. It was widely conceded that<br />
<strong>the</strong> agenda in this—<strong>the</strong> Canada Round—would need to be broader than that of<br />
Meech. As a result one finds a more consistent expression of liberal political<br />
economy than had been possible in <strong>the</strong> Quebec round represented in Meech.<br />
<strong>The</strong> BCNI became more specific about <strong>the</strong> linkages between <strong>the</strong> economy <strong>and</strong><br />
political system, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> ways in which <strong>the</strong> latter might be restructured to more<br />
adequately serve <strong>the</strong> former. “In <strong>the</strong> quest for competitiveness, <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
political system must be an ally <strong>and</strong> not an impediment. First <strong>and</strong> foremost, <strong>the</strong><br />
reforms to our federal system must ensure that <strong>the</strong> Canadian common market is<br />
established in fact <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> Canadian economic union is streng<strong>the</strong>ned. <strong>The</strong><br />
free movement of labour, capital, goods <strong>and</strong> services must be guaranteed under<br />
any new constitutional arrangement, <strong>and</strong> in this area, we see <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
government having a streng<strong>the</strong>ned role” (Business Council on National Issues<br />
1991:8). This goal outweighed all o<strong>the</strong>rs in business’s mind. So while <strong>the</strong><br />
BCNI was prepared to countenance “meaningful decentralization or a reduced<br />
federal government role in fields assigned to <strong>the</strong> provinces under <strong>the</strong> current<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> or a revised <strong>Constitution</strong>,” this was subject to <strong>the</strong> proviso that<br />
“any decentralization must be accompanied by concrete arrangements to<br />
assure greater coordination or co-operation—o<strong>the</strong>rwise, <strong>the</strong> existing Canadian<br />
economic union, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefits it confers, will be threatened” (Business<br />
Council on National Issues 1992:24). Essentially <strong>the</strong> Business Council’s<br />
constitutional program consisted of contriving a new balance such that <strong>the</strong><br />
threat of Quebec separatism would be removed <strong>and</strong> a reformed federation,<br />
characterized by political stability, could function effectively <strong>and</strong> contribute to<br />
economic competitiveness <strong>and</strong> prosperity. A re-ordered division <strong>and</strong> sharing<br />
of powers was viewed as necessary to this end—but this by no means implied a<br />
wholesale decentralization of powers; in some areas, at least, enhanced federal<br />
power would result. To render this palatable to regional opinion, reform of<br />
federal institutions, including <strong>the</strong> Senate, <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
development of new consultative procedures for federal-provincial<br />
communication, was necessary (Business Council on National Issues 1991).<br />
Clearly <strong>the</strong>se measures amount to a form of intra-state federalism.<br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
<strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord was driven by <strong>the</strong> refusal of <strong>the</strong> Quebec government<br />
to endorse <strong>the</strong> 1982 <strong>Constitution</strong>. A number of propitious circumstances in <strong>the</strong><br />
mid 1980s—<strong>the</strong> departure of Trudeau <strong>and</strong> Levesque, <strong>the</strong> election of a federal<br />
Conservative government pledged to national reconciliation <strong>and</strong> wishing to<br />
consolidate its new found electoral support in Quebec, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> election of a<br />
Liberal government in Quebec whose chief priority was to normalize <strong>the</strong><br />
position of <strong>the</strong> province (McRoberts 1988: Ch.11) explain why <strong>the</strong> attempt<br />
was made when it was.<br />
191
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
My own concern here, of course, is not with <strong>the</strong> Quebec issue or Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
per se, but with <strong>the</strong> opportunity which Canada’s unfinished constitutional<br />
agenda afforded for <strong>the</strong> neo-conservative view of <strong>the</strong> good <strong>Constitution</strong> to be<br />
implemented. <strong>The</strong> federal government sensed that success in “bringing<br />
Quebec back in,” a considerable political prize in its own right, would be<br />
enhanced to <strong>the</strong> extent that <strong>the</strong> agenda was limited (see Monahan 1991:50-4).<br />
This meant that it should be restricted, as far as possible, to <strong>the</strong> specific points<br />
raised by <strong>the</strong> Quebec government. For this reason it is unrealistic to search for<br />
<strong>the</strong> intrusion, into an already difficult set of negotiations, of an explicit<br />
commitment to <strong>the</strong> constitutional principles of liberal political economy. <strong>The</strong><br />
most that one can expect to find is a correspondence or consistency between<br />
<strong>the</strong> federal government’s position in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord <strong>and</strong> its general<br />
ideology.<br />
Much of <strong>the</strong> fabric of Canada’s post-war welfare state was developed at federal<br />
initiative but in areas of provincial jurisdiction. <strong>The</strong> federal government’s<br />
spending power was used as an instrument to create shared-cost social<br />
programs. While <strong>the</strong> precise arrangements varied by program, a common<br />
feature was provincial delivery of <strong>the</strong> service, but with significant financial<br />
contribution from <strong>the</strong> federal government which, also, imposed conditions<br />
designed to produce national coherence in <strong>the</strong> programs.<br />
Under <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, <strong>the</strong> Government of Canada undertook to<br />
provide “reasonable compensation to <strong>the</strong> government of a province that<br />
chooses not to participate in a [new] national shared-cost program... in an area<br />
of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if <strong>the</strong> province carries on a program or<br />
initiative that is compatible with national objectives.” <strong>The</strong> opposition to<br />
federal spending power had originated with Quebec <strong>and</strong> thus forms part of <strong>the</strong><br />
traditional constitutional agenda, based on language <strong>and</strong> territory. However,<br />
significant support existed among <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provinces for Quebec’s proposal<br />
to limit <strong>the</strong> spending power. Some of <strong>the</strong>m had argued for years that Ottawa’s<br />
social policy initiatives distorted provincial priorities <strong>and</strong> that, in an era of<br />
fiscal restraint, <strong>the</strong> federal government had become an unreliable financial<br />
partner. Once established, social programs were politically difficult to<br />
terminate. As <strong>the</strong> federal government pared back its financial support, <strong>the</strong><br />
provinces were left to sustain some very expensive programs. Quebec,<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore, could rely on considerable support, from o<strong>the</strong>r provinces on this<br />
issue. Some of this support came from provinces in which neo-conservative<br />
thinking was influential, such as Alberta <strong>and</strong> British Columbia, <strong>and</strong> which had<br />
been in <strong>the</strong> forefront of dem<strong>and</strong>s for constitutional change. 1 What was new in<br />
<strong>the</strong> mid-1980s was <strong>the</strong> hostility of <strong>the</strong> federal government to <strong>the</strong> nationbuilding<br />
<strong>and</strong> social reform agenda that <strong>the</strong> spending power had promoted. This<br />
meant that <strong>the</strong> provinces’ dem<strong>and</strong>s met little resistance. <strong>The</strong>re was thus a<br />
conjunction of interest between those whose <strong>the</strong>ory of federalism was based on<br />
<strong>the</strong> claims of language <strong>and</strong> territory <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> neo-conservative desire, on <strong>the</strong><br />
part of both federal <strong>and</strong> some provincial governments, to reduce <strong>the</strong> state’s role<br />
in economic <strong>and</strong> social policy.<br />
<strong>The</strong> linkage between <strong>the</strong> Accord’s provisions <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> preferences of liberal<br />
political economy was drawn most clearly by those opposed to Meech. Coyne<br />
(1989:246-8) argued that <strong>the</strong> ability to opt-out of future national programs,<br />
without financial disincentive, would erode Ottawa’s ability to build a national<br />
identity based on relatively st<strong>and</strong>ardized access to social provision. When<br />
combined with o<strong>the</strong>r provisions in <strong>the</strong> Accord, she considered that <strong>the</strong> effect<br />
“involves a substantial devolution of power to <strong>the</strong> provinces <strong>and</strong> significant<br />
192
Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong> as an Instrument of Competitiveness<br />
shift of political dynamism on matters of national importance away from <strong>the</strong><br />
federal Parliament, as well as undermining <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong><br />
Freedoms” (247).<br />
Probably <strong>the</strong> most controversial item in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord was <strong>the</strong><br />
inclusion in <strong>the</strong> constitutional draft of an interpretive clause recognizing<br />
Quebec as a distinct society. Since this article concerns <strong>the</strong> neo-conservative<br />
agenda that is driven largely by <strong>the</strong> economic <strong>and</strong> social values expressed in<br />
liberal political economy, while <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause addresses <strong>the</strong><br />
traditional linguistic cleavage in Canadian federalism, <strong>the</strong> debate need not<br />
detain us unduly.<br />
<strong>The</strong> neo-conservatives conditional preference for a decentralized federation<br />
may have played a minor role in rendering asymetrical arrangements palatable<br />
to <strong>the</strong>m, in a way that <strong>the</strong>y never were for <strong>the</strong> nationally-focused Trudeau<br />
Liberals. However, <strong>the</strong> Mulroney government’s prime motivation was probably<br />
to be found in <strong>the</strong> political <strong>and</strong> partisan imperatives of building a coalition<br />
between Western provincialists <strong>and</strong> Quebec nationalists. O<strong>the</strong>r elements of <strong>the</strong><br />
Meech package appear to demonstrate <strong>the</strong> strength <strong>and</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> “all<br />
provinces are equal” doctrine. In making <strong>the</strong>se concessions to provincial<br />
pressure, neo-conservative tolerance for a decentralized federation is probably<br />
of greater significance; quite simply, <strong>the</strong>re were few purposes for which neoconservatives<br />
required a strong national government (though <strong>the</strong>re were<br />
some), <strong>and</strong> many uses to which a strong national government could be put that<br />
were inimical to <strong>the</strong> neo-conservative project.<br />
This interpretation of Meech is reinforced when it is considered in t<strong>and</strong>em with<br />
<strong>the</strong> Free Trade Agreement. <strong>The</strong> connection between <strong>the</strong> two has been<br />
forcefully expressed by Simeon (1989:4-6): “<strong>the</strong> Free Trade Agreement is far<br />
more significant a restraint on governments in general than Meech <strong>La</strong>ke is, <strong>and</strong><br />
more of a restraint on <strong>the</strong> federal government than it is on <strong>the</strong> provinces ... each<br />
does have this one element underlying it: a sense of <strong>the</strong> need to limit <strong>and</strong><br />
constrain <strong>the</strong> state in <strong>the</strong> modern era...one can at least make <strong>the</strong> argument that<br />
both in <strong>the</strong> long-run are likely to increase domestic fragmentation <strong>and</strong> certainly<br />
to inhibit a strong nation-building policy led by <strong>the</strong> federal government...for<br />
<strong>the</strong> many who argue for both, <strong>the</strong> two are tied toge<strong>the</strong>r by hostility towards an<br />
activist, interventionist, national state, both in its nation-building role <strong>and</strong> in its<br />
economic development role...decentralization <strong>and</strong> a degree of noninterventionism<br />
go toge<strong>the</strong>r.”<br />
To what extent, <strong>the</strong>n, can <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord be viewed as an expression<br />
of a neo-conservative constitutional agenda? Banting (1988: 588-9) views <strong>the</strong><br />
debate over Meech <strong>La</strong>ke as one between those committed to a nation-building,<br />
centralist view of federalism in which a strong central government is <strong>the</strong> key<br />
instrument of national integration, <strong>and</strong> between those who view Canadian<br />
politics as being about <strong>the</strong> reconciliation of regional, territorial <strong>and</strong> linguistic<br />
differences. <strong>The</strong> latter view favours a decentralized federation since <strong>the</strong><br />
cleavages to which it is sensitive require locally differentiated policies <strong>and</strong><br />
programs. Meech <strong>La</strong>ke, <strong>the</strong>refore, involved asserting <strong>the</strong> primacy of linguistic<br />
<strong>and</strong> territorial cleavages over those class-based cleavages which led to an<br />
agenda of social reform <strong>and</strong> national integration. Neo-conservatives would<br />
clearly prefer <strong>the</strong> former to <strong>the</strong> latter since it involved weakening <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
level: “<strong>the</strong> new stress on interdependence is purchased almost entirely at <strong>the</strong><br />
cost of reducing <strong>the</strong> autonomy <strong>and</strong> discretion of <strong>the</strong> federal government, <strong>and</strong> of<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> role of provincial governments in virtually every area<br />
193
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
touched by <strong>the</strong> Accord” (Cairns 1991:158). In this sense at least <strong>the</strong> Accord<br />
was decentralizing <strong>and</strong> could be viewed with favour by neo-conservatives,<br />
even if <strong>the</strong> streng<strong>the</strong>ning of provincial governments was somewhat<br />
problematic. And, although <strong>the</strong>re are various explanations for federal<br />
compliance, one of <strong>the</strong>se is that provincial governments were less likely to<br />
impede realization of a neo-conservative economic <strong>and</strong> social agenda. This<br />
perception is based upon <strong>the</strong> historical roles played by <strong>the</strong> two levels of<br />
government: “<strong>The</strong> creation of a political culture conducive to <strong>the</strong> creation of a<br />
social service state was slow to emerge. Governments, particularly those at <strong>the</strong><br />
provincial level, preferred to spend <strong>the</strong>ir tax revenues on private <strong>and</strong> public<br />
projects that contributed directly to capital accumulation. Provincial<br />
governments saw little or no political advantage to involving revenues in<br />
projects of legitimization, such as health <strong>and</strong> social welfare programs”<br />
(Behiels 1989:236). When this situation began to change it was primarily as a<br />
result of federal government initiatives. On <strong>the</strong> basis of historical experience,<br />
transferring powers to <strong>the</strong> provinces might reasonably be expected to lead to<br />
policy outcomes consistent with liberal political economy.<br />
Certainly, <strong>the</strong>se calculations could help to account for a striking feature of <strong>the</strong><br />
federal government’s negotiating posture: an apparent indifference to <strong>the</strong><br />
maintenance of federal authority. One provincial premier has been reported as<br />
saying that Mulroney “kept asking if we had a deal... It was as if he didn’t have<br />
any idea what <strong>the</strong> deal was or he didn’t care that much as long as he got one”<br />
(cited in Cairns 1991:252). Yet a journalist’s account, also cited by Cairns<br />
(153), points to <strong>the</strong> underlying content or substance of an o<strong>the</strong>rwise<br />
incomprehensible attitude. According to this account, <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister gave<br />
Lowell Murray “carte blanche to negotiate away whatever federal powers<br />
were necessary to get Quebec into <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>.” Obviously, <strong>the</strong>re was no<br />
shortage of willing takers. Moreover, as Trudeau pointed out (1989:90),<br />
Mulroney had already made major concessions of powers to <strong>the</strong> provinces<br />
before <strong>the</strong> constitutional talks began (abolition of <strong>the</strong> National Energy<br />
Program, grant of offshore resources to Newfoundl<strong>and</strong>, etc.).<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are some interesting parallels between <strong>the</strong> government’s negotiating<br />
strategy at Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> that adopted in <strong>the</strong> Free Trade negotiations with<br />
<strong>the</strong> Americans. In Clarkson’s view (1991:116), Mulroney:<br />
...put Canada in <strong>the</strong> weakest possible bargaining situation ... As<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>eur in <strong>the</strong> negotiations, Canada laid its cards on <strong>the</strong> table....<br />
<strong>The</strong> United States made no concessions but sat back <strong>and</strong> waited.<br />
When <strong>the</strong> bargaining crunch came, <strong>the</strong> Canadian negotiators were<br />
under instructions to do anything to get a deal.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ultimate document represented an astonishing gain for American<br />
trade diplomacy while surrendering virtually no American<br />
sovereignty. ... Canada had made enormous concessions that limited <strong>the</strong><br />
federal <strong>and</strong> provincial governments’ capacity to make industrial<br />
policies to promote <strong>the</strong>ir exports, to husb<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir energy reserves, or<br />
to foster <strong>the</strong>ir cultural industries.<br />
How can we explain <strong>the</strong> negotiating stance of <strong>the</strong> federal government? Was it<br />
monumental incompetence? Or, as <strong>the</strong> substance of <strong>the</strong> agreements suggests,<br />
was it <strong>the</strong> practical extension of <strong>the</strong> logic of liberal political economy? In my<br />
view <strong>the</strong> latter is <strong>the</strong> more realistic position. Both Meech <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Free Trade<br />
194
Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong> as an Instrument of Competitiveness<br />
Agreement constrained governments: <strong>the</strong> federal (<strong>and</strong> most interventionist)<br />
government most severely. And, although <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>ned provincial governments, <strong>the</strong> exercise of some of <strong>the</strong> new powers<br />
would be constrained by <strong>the</strong> Free Trade Agreement. Taken toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> two<br />
agreements may not represent <strong>the</strong> perfect situation from <strong>the</strong> viewpoint of<br />
liberal political economy; but <strong>the</strong>y do represent a preferable situation to that<br />
inherited by <strong>the</strong> Mulroney government.<br />
Awkwardly, from <strong>the</strong> point of view of this happy scenario, <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
Accord was not ratified. In 1991-92 <strong>the</strong> constitutional question had to be<br />
addressed once more.<br />
<strong>The</strong> “Canada Round,” 1991-92<br />
<strong>The</strong> demise of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense of crisis it occasioned led<br />
inevitably to ano<strong>the</strong>r round of constitutional proposals. <strong>The</strong> agenda was<br />
broadened partly by Quebec’s shift to a “maximalist” set of dem<strong>and</strong>s<br />
expressed in <strong>the</strong> Allaire <strong>and</strong> Bélanger-Campeau reports (in contrast to <strong>the</strong><br />
modest proposals of 1986) . <strong>The</strong>se were reinforced by legislation to hold a<br />
referendum by <strong>the</strong> fall of 1992.<br />
However, <strong>the</strong>re was intense <strong>and</strong> widespread activity elsewhere on <strong>the</strong> fate of<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> which featured initiatives by both governments <strong>and</strong> private<br />
individuals <strong>and</strong> organizations. <strong>The</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> for citizen input in <strong>the</strong> new round<br />
of constitutional renewal sprang from <strong>the</strong> widespread perception that <strong>the</strong><br />
Meech Accord had been hatched in <strong>the</strong> back rooms or, more formally, that it<br />
was <strong>the</strong> result of executive federalism ra<strong>the</strong>r than popular participation.<br />
<strong>The</strong> federal government unveiled its own constitutional proposals in<br />
September 1991 (Canada 1991a). Quantitatively, in terms of <strong>the</strong> proportion of<br />
proposals dealing with “prosperity,” <strong>the</strong> government seems to have accorded<br />
greatest priority to transforming <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> into <strong>the</strong> help-mate of<br />
economic success. <strong>The</strong> federal proposals in this part of <strong>the</strong> package, toge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
with property rights which was included elsewhere, represent <strong>the</strong> core of <strong>the</strong><br />
neo-conservative constitutional agenda.<br />
Competitiveness as a Rationale for Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong><br />
In <strong>the</strong> past, <strong>the</strong> government argued, <strong>the</strong> mutually supportive combination of a<br />
federal political system <strong>and</strong> an economic union, had enabled Canada to<br />
become one of <strong>the</strong> world’s most prosperous countries. For <strong>the</strong>se benefits to be<br />
maintained in <strong>the</strong> face of <strong>the</strong> impact of globalization on national sovereignty,<br />
<strong>the</strong> basic combination must continue—“economic <strong>and</strong> political integration go<br />
h<strong>and</strong>-in-h<strong>and</strong>” (Canada 1991b:9). But a variety of challenges, internal <strong>and</strong><br />
external, meant that continuity was insufficient—“to prosper we must change”<br />
(Canada 1991a:29).<br />
More specifically, <strong>the</strong> external challenge of globalization <strong>and</strong> technological<br />
change required “Greater adaptability <strong>and</strong> more effective approaches to how<br />
federal <strong>and</strong> provincial governments interact with each o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>and</strong> with <strong>the</strong><br />
private sector” (Canada 1991b:1). Internally, <strong>the</strong> existence of barriers to <strong>the</strong><br />
free flow of goods <strong>and</strong> services, combined with <strong>the</strong> phenomena of federal <strong>and</strong><br />
provincial policies working at cross purposes to each o<strong>the</strong>r, pointed in <strong>the</strong><br />
same direction. In <strong>the</strong> government’s view, one of <strong>the</strong> key ingredients of future<br />
competitiveness lay in streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> free market basis of <strong>the</strong> economic<br />
union: “At <strong>the</strong> heart of effective economic integration must be <strong>the</strong> absence of<br />
195
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
restrictions to <strong>the</strong> free flow of people, goods, services <strong>and</strong> capital <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
existence of a common currency, which encourages this free flow by removing<br />
exchange rate uncertainty <strong>and</strong> transaction costs that can impede trade.”<br />
Streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> Economic Union<br />
<strong>The</strong> impact of various government policies was recognized as on-going <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> need as one of harmonization <strong>and</strong> predictability. However, <strong>the</strong> core of <strong>the</strong><br />
proposal is <strong>the</strong> laissez-faire notion that, as far as possible, governments should<br />
be constrained from interference with <strong>the</strong> operation of markets. This<br />
viewpoint, dear to <strong>the</strong> hearts of liberal political economists, found expression<br />
in <strong>the</strong> text of <strong>the</strong> proposal to amend Section 121, <strong>the</strong> common market clause of<br />
<strong>the</strong> existing <strong>Constitution</strong>: “(1) Canada is an economic union within which<br />
persons, goods, services <strong>and</strong> capital may move freely without barriers or<br />
restrictions based on provincial or territorial boundaries. (2) Nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
Parliament or Government of Canada nor <strong>the</strong> legislatures or governments of<br />
<strong>the</strong> provinces shall by law or practice contravene <strong>the</strong> principle expressed in<br />
subsection (1).” Although some exceptions follow, <strong>the</strong> core of <strong>the</strong> proposed<br />
article is clear: <strong>the</strong> principle that no government can legitimately interfere<br />
with market relations would be constitutionally entrenched. It is a clear case of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian government seeking to constitutionalize its particular economic<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory or ideology. 2<br />
General exceptions could be made by <strong>the</strong> federal government, with <strong>the</strong> consent<br />
of seven provinces with at least 50 percent of <strong>the</strong> population: (a) to exempt any<br />
barrier from judicial review, by declaring it in <strong>the</strong> national interest; (b) to<br />
legislate on anything related to <strong>the</strong> efficiency of <strong>the</strong> economic union.<br />
Thus, <strong>the</strong> substance of <strong>the</strong> proposed amendment was both decentralizing, in<br />
than it prohibited any level of government from interfering with <strong>the</strong> free flow<br />
of economic activity, <strong>and</strong> centralizing, in its impact on federal-provincial<br />
relations. If provinces wish exemptions <strong>the</strong>y must obtain federal permission<br />
(plus that of sufficient o<strong>the</strong>r provinces). On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
government “has almost unlimited capacity to interfere with democratic<br />
outcomes within a particular province, as long as enough o<strong>the</strong>r provinces<br />
agree” (Howse 1991:15). Traditionally, centralization in <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
political economy has been a formula for an active government <strong>and</strong> for nationbuilding<br />
projects. But as <strong>the</strong> earlier discussion of business’ constitutional<br />
program indicated, a degree of central political authority is necessary for o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
policy regimes as well. Under <strong>the</strong> Mulroney government, centralization seems<br />
to be envisaged as an instrument to enforce a minimalist conception of<br />
government. If we bear in mind <strong>the</strong> “free economy, strong state” depiction of<br />
neo- conservative political economy, any paradox is only apparent.<br />
Liberal political economy posits that large, barrier-free markets permit<br />
economies of scale, more efficient use of resources, <strong>and</strong> thus maximize <strong>the</strong><br />
general welfare. <strong>The</strong>re is no shortage of documentation that existing provincial<br />
<strong>and</strong> federal practices deviate from <strong>the</strong> neo-classical ideal. Many of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
policies have, of course, been <strong>the</strong> stock-in-trade of <strong>the</strong> nation-building (<strong>and</strong><br />
province-building) efforts of activist Canadian governments. <strong>The</strong>ir<br />
prohibition, <strong>and</strong> its entrenchment in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, would represent a strong<br />
defence for <strong>the</strong> market order against democratically-elected governments<br />
seeking to satisfy <strong>the</strong>ir electorates by moderating market outcomes. Of course,<br />
<strong>the</strong> assumption that free trade, whe<strong>the</strong>r internally or internationally, will<br />
produce a net increment in welfare depends upon assumptions, such as full-<br />
196
Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong> as an Instrument of Competitiveness<br />
employment, which demonstrably are not present in Canada (Jackson<br />
1992:73-5; Furlong <strong>and</strong> Moggach 1990). 3<br />
Such a development entrenches one value—efficiency—as <strong>the</strong> prime goal of<br />
social activity in <strong>the</strong> country. Entrenchment constrains potential democratic<br />
majorities who may favour a different value, say equity, from achieving <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
ends. <strong>The</strong> effect is to insulate from democratic control something which ought<br />
to be subject to it. In <strong>the</strong> context of a federal system, a watertight economic<br />
union may be incompatible with <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of federalism: “<strong>The</strong> very purpose<br />
of fiscal federalism ... inevitably leads to differences in <strong>the</strong> levels of taxation<br />
<strong>and</strong> public services ... (which) ... may interfere with <strong>the</strong> most efficient<br />
allocation of resources <strong>and</strong> location of industry for <strong>the</strong> region (nation) as a<br />
whole; such is <strong>the</strong> cost of political subdivision” (Musgrave, cited in Courchene<br />
1986:204). <strong>The</strong> federal proposals, <strong>the</strong>refore, had far reaching implications.<br />
Harmonization Measures<br />
A related proposal was designed to achieve better coordination of federal <strong>and</strong><br />
provincial fiscal policies, to improve <strong>the</strong> harmonization of <strong>the</strong>se with Canada’s<br />
monetary policy, <strong>and</strong> to apply moral suasion to a province pursuing<br />
disharmonious policies. <strong>The</strong> government proposed new procedures such as a<br />
relatively fixed annual budget cycle; a fixed annual schedule of <strong>the</strong> Finance<br />
Minister’s meetings; <strong>the</strong> publication by all governments of pre-budget<br />
economic/fiscal outlooks; <strong>and</strong> common accounting conventions (Canada<br />
1991a:32). Beyond that, however, “guidelines” to better coordinate policies<br />
were foreseen. If approved by <strong>the</strong> federal government <strong>and</strong> seven provinces<br />
with at least fifty percent of <strong>the</strong> population, meeting in a new Council of<br />
Federation, <strong>the</strong> guidelines would be set in federal legislation under <strong>the</strong> new<br />
economic union power. Although up to three provinces could opt-out, with a<br />
60 percent vote in <strong>the</strong>ir legislative assemblies, <strong>the</strong> opt-out was only for three<br />
years <strong>and</strong> it was unclear, in <strong>the</strong> federal proposals, whe<strong>the</strong>r such measures were<br />
renewable. <strong>The</strong> federal government also favoured establishing an independent<br />
agency “to monitor <strong>and</strong> evaluate” <strong>the</strong> macroeconomic policies of <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
<strong>and</strong> provincial governments.<br />
<strong>The</strong> effect was clearly centralizing (albeit requiring substantial provincial<br />
consent). Certainly a common reaction in Quebec was that <strong>the</strong> proposals<br />
represented a federal “power grab.” More generally, it is reasonable to infer<br />
that <strong>the</strong> ability of any province, or small number of provinces, to deviate from a<br />
national majority viewpoint would be circumscribed under <strong>the</strong>se proposals. In<br />
<strong>the</strong> context of Canadian electoral history this might be expected to be more of a<br />
problem for provinces with a left-leaning government than for those with more<br />
conservative administrations.<br />
Reforming <strong>the</strong> Bank of Canada’s M<strong>and</strong>ate<br />
<strong>The</strong> government included in its constitutional proposals a number of ideas for<br />
changing <strong>the</strong> Bank of Canada’s m<strong>and</strong>ate, <strong>and</strong> for changing <strong>the</strong> appointments<br />
system to <strong>the</strong> Board <strong>and</strong> Governorship of <strong>the</strong> Bank. Since <strong>the</strong> Bank is under <strong>the</strong><br />
exclusive jurisdiction of <strong>the</strong> federal authorities this could be accomplished<br />
without provincial involvement <strong>and</strong> without amending <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> in any<br />
way.<br />
<strong>The</strong> changes in appointment procedures must be seen as largely symbolic.<br />
This is because <strong>the</strong> Bank’s m<strong>and</strong>ate, under <strong>the</strong> rest of <strong>the</strong> federal proposal,<br />
would be focused on a single goal—<strong>the</strong> preservation of price stability. At<br />
197
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
present <strong>the</strong> Bank’s m<strong>and</strong>ate is much broader: “to regulate credit <strong>and</strong> currency<br />
in <strong>the</strong> best interest of <strong>the</strong> economic life of <strong>the</strong> nation, to control <strong>and</strong> protect <strong>the</strong><br />
external value of <strong>the</strong> national monetary unit <strong>and</strong> to mitigate by its influence<br />
fluctuations in <strong>the</strong> general level of production, trade prices, <strong>and</strong> employment,<br />
so far as may be possible within <strong>the</strong> scope of monetary action, <strong>and</strong> generally to<br />
promote <strong>the</strong> economic <strong>and</strong> financial welfare of Canada” (Canada 1991b:38).<br />
Nothing in <strong>the</strong> package demonstrates more clearly <strong>the</strong> influence of liberal<br />
political economy upon <strong>the</strong> government’s constitutional agenda than <strong>the</strong><br />
argumentation surrounding this proposal: “<strong>The</strong> only contribution <strong>the</strong> Bank of<br />
Canada can make to <strong>the</strong> well-being of all Canadians in <strong>the</strong> long run is to pursue<br />
policies which maintain <strong>the</strong> purchasing power of <strong>the</strong> nation’s money.... <strong>The</strong><br />
references to mitigating fluctuations in production, trade <strong>and</strong> employment <strong>and</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r objectives should be eliminated as <strong>the</strong>y represent objectives ei<strong>the</strong>r that<br />
history has taught us a central bank cannot achieve or that can only be achieved<br />
through price stability” (Canada 1991b:38-9). This is, of course, a somewhat<br />
selective <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>oretically blinkered reading of what history has to offer.<br />
Pierre Fortin (1991:3) comments that <strong>the</strong> new m<strong>and</strong>ate, zero inflation would<br />
“force our central bank to support a priori a scientific position that is highly<br />
controversial at best <strong>and</strong>, at worst, completely in error.”<br />
Re-distribution of Powers<br />
<strong>The</strong> decentralization of federal powers previously noted in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
Accord was replicated <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong>ed in <strong>the</strong> 1991 proposals. A number of areas<br />
were to be recognized as being within exclusive provincial jurisdiction:<br />
training, tourism, forestry, mining, recreation, housing, <strong>and</strong> municipal <strong>and</strong><br />
urban affairs. A number of o<strong>the</strong>r areas were identified for review to see which<br />
level of government could best provide <strong>the</strong>m. With respect to immigration <strong>and</strong><br />
culture, <strong>the</strong> federal government was prepared to negotiate <strong>and</strong><br />
constitutionalize agreements with individual provinces. In addition, <strong>the</strong><br />
government proposed a constitutional amendment to permit <strong>the</strong> delegation of<br />
legislative authority between <strong>the</strong> two levels of government. It was also willing<br />
to remove <strong>the</strong> federal declaratory power from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> to<br />
recognize provincial possession of <strong>the</strong> residual power on “non-national<br />
matters not specifically assigned to <strong>the</strong> federal government under <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> or by virtue of court decisions.” Finally, <strong>the</strong> Meech objective of<br />
limiting <strong>the</strong> federal spending power found a place in <strong>the</strong> 1991 proposals. <strong>The</strong><br />
result would be major decentralization of Canadian federalism (Johnson<br />
1992). Most of <strong>the</strong> decentralizing measures are consistent with neoconservative<br />
principles, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> federal government’s desire to rid itself of<br />
<strong>the</strong>se responsibilities is unsurprising. However, <strong>the</strong> impulse to<br />
decentralization should be placed in <strong>the</strong> context of o<strong>the</strong>r proposals which, in<br />
certain areas, would have had <strong>the</strong> effect of enhancing federal authority.<br />
Property Rights<br />
<strong>The</strong> government failed to advance any rationale for its proposal to include in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms a guarantee for property rights. Bakan<br />
(1992:118) offers three possible reasons: a desire to undercut Reform Party<br />
support, to give <strong>the</strong>mselves a bargaining chip in <strong>the</strong> constitutional<br />
negotiations, or a desire “to elevate <strong>the</strong>ir market ideology to constitutional<br />
status. David Milne argued that property rights provisions are a “favourite<br />
vehicle for conservative interests resisting social legislation <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> welfare<br />
state” (cited in Mittelstaedt 1991). Such comments demonstrate <strong>the</strong><br />
198
Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong> as an Instrument of Competitiveness<br />
consistency of <strong>the</strong> property-rights proposal with <strong>the</strong> general neo-conservative<br />
constitutional agenda. <strong>The</strong> government’s precise motivation in making <strong>the</strong><br />
proposal at this time, however, remains unclear.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Process 1991-92<br />
<strong>The</strong> government’s economic constitutional proposals were not well- received<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Renewal of Canada conferences called to discuss <strong>the</strong>m. <strong>The</strong> principle of<br />
a strong economic union seems not to have been problematic. However, <strong>the</strong><br />
proposed mechanisms for achieving it were. In particular, <strong>the</strong> proposed<br />
Section 91A granting Parliament (subject to provincial approval on <strong>the</strong> 7/50<br />
formula) <strong>the</strong> right to make laws it declared to be for <strong>the</strong> efficient functioning of<br />
<strong>the</strong> economic union, was rejected almost unanimously on <strong>the</strong> grounds that it<br />
was unnecessary, illegitimate <strong>and</strong> inappropriate (Canada 1992a:10-13; 19-<br />
22). <strong>The</strong> proposals for greater harmonization of fiscal policies, <strong>and</strong> of fiscal<br />
policy with monetary policy, received <strong>the</strong> same response. Delegates to <strong>the</strong><br />
conference were quite suspicious of rigid <strong>and</strong> constitutionally entrenched<br />
mechanisms for dealing with problems <strong>the</strong>y felt ought to be addressed flexibly<br />
(Canada 1992a:14-16). Delegates unequivocally felt that <strong>the</strong> Bank of Canada<br />
reforms ought not to be part of <strong>the</strong> constitutional process <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> Bank’s<br />
m<strong>and</strong>ate should not be narrowed to focus only on price stability (Canada<br />
1992a:17-18; Canada 1992b:11). <strong>The</strong> Conference on Identity, Rights <strong>and</strong><br />
Values overwhelmingly rejected <strong>the</strong> inclusion of property rights (Canada<br />
1992c:15-16). Fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> proposal to include a Social <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>, clearly nei<strong>the</strong>r part of <strong>the</strong> federal government’s proposals nor a<br />
neo-conservative preference, surfaced in a number of <strong>the</strong> conferences <strong>and</strong> it<br />
was apparent that <strong>the</strong> idea enjoyed substantial support. Finally, although <strong>the</strong><br />
results of <strong>the</strong> Conference on <strong>the</strong> Division of Powers could not be construed as a<br />
repudiation of <strong>the</strong> federal proposals, <strong>the</strong>re was clearly strong support for a<br />
strong central government, national st<strong>and</strong>ards, <strong>and</strong> a willingness to deal with<br />
Quebec’s aspirations through asymmetry ra<strong>the</strong>r than through generalized<br />
devolution (Canada 1992d:21).<br />
Given its composition, one could expect <strong>the</strong> Beaudoin-Dobbie Committee to<br />
be generally supportive of <strong>the</strong> federal proposals. While this expectation was<br />
met, even <strong>the</strong> Conservatives who belonged to it were affected by <strong>the</strong> process of<br />
public discussion. In a number of areas <strong>the</strong> Report suggested alterations to <strong>the</strong><br />
federal package; <strong>the</strong> Committee felt fur<strong>the</strong>r consultations with <strong>the</strong> artistic <strong>and</strong><br />
cultural communities should take place before proceeding with <strong>the</strong> proposal to<br />
transfer jurisdiction over culture to <strong>the</strong> provinces (Beaudoin- Dobbie<br />
1992:77); it favoured a non-judicial dispute settlement mechanism for<br />
policing <strong>the</strong> economic union (87); <strong>the</strong> inclusion in it of undertakings to pursue<br />
<strong>the</strong> goals of full-employment <strong>and</strong> ensuring that all Canadians have a<br />
reasonable st<strong>and</strong>ard of living (88-9); <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> inclusion of a “social covenant”<br />
(87). In addition, <strong>the</strong> report recommended that <strong>the</strong> issue of <strong>the</strong> Bank of<br />
Canada’s m<strong>and</strong>ate not be part of <strong>the</strong> constitutional discussions.<br />
Enter <strong>the</strong> Provinces<br />
However widespread <strong>the</strong> public consultations, <strong>the</strong> amendment of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> remains an intergovernmental process. A number of provinces<br />
had well defined constitutional dem<strong>and</strong>s to pursue once <strong>the</strong> negotiations<br />
began in <strong>the</strong> spring of 1992. <strong>The</strong>se included Alberta’s advocacy of a Triple E<br />
Senate, Manitoba’s concern to see a “Canada clause” in <strong>the</strong> new package that<br />
would express <strong>the</strong> underlying values of Canadians <strong>and</strong> thus help unify <strong>the</strong><br />
199
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
country, <strong>and</strong> Ontario’s dem<strong>and</strong> for a social charter to guarantee social<br />
programs <strong>and</strong> national st<strong>and</strong>ards. A number of provinces had differing<br />
concerns about aboriginal issues <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed recognition of an inherent<br />
right to self-government. <strong>The</strong> most detailed, longest, <strong>and</strong> most public list of<br />
constitutional requirements was that of Quebec, which declined to participate<br />
in <strong>the</strong> negotiations until <strong>the</strong> rest of Canada came up with an acceptable<br />
“offer”—a position Premier Bourassa had adopted after Meech unravelled.<br />
Despite <strong>the</strong> complexities <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> clash of agendas <strong>the</strong> nine provinces <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
federal government arrived at an agreement covering a wide range of topics on<br />
July 7, 1992. On this basis Quebec rejoined <strong>the</strong> constitutional negotiations <strong>and</strong><br />
on August 28, in Charlottetown, an agreement was reached between <strong>the</strong><br />
federal government, all provinces, <strong>and</strong> native <strong>and</strong> territorial leaders. Here we<br />
shall be concerned only with those provisions previously identified as part of a<br />
neo-conservative constitutional agenda. All references will be to <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown agreement unless o<strong>the</strong>rwise stated.<br />
A number of <strong>the</strong> federal government’s original proposals, including measures<br />
to harmonize fiscal policy, change <strong>the</strong> Bank of Canada’s m<strong>and</strong>ate, <strong>and</strong><br />
entrench property rights, were absent. A number of <strong>the</strong> items that were<br />
included were ei<strong>the</strong>r undesirable from <strong>the</strong> viewpoint of liberal political<br />
economy or, at best, a mixed blessing. A non justiciable provision described<br />
<strong>the</strong> commitment of <strong>the</strong> governments <strong>and</strong> legislatures to preserve <strong>and</strong> develop<br />
Canada’s social <strong>and</strong> economic union, <strong>and</strong> called for a monitoring mechanism<br />
to be established by a future First Ministers’ Conference. Presumably such a<br />
mechanism could apply moral suasion against any goverment deviating from<br />
<strong>the</strong> policy objectives of <strong>the</strong> social <strong>and</strong> economic union. <strong>The</strong> policy objectives<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves, however, provide little joy to <strong>the</strong> liberal political economist. In<br />
addition to a commitment to streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> economic union <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> free<br />
movement of persons, goods, services, <strong>and</strong> capital, which was obviously<br />
acceptable, <strong>the</strong> clause included items that were not.<br />
Under <strong>the</strong> social union, governments <strong>and</strong> legislatures would be committed to<br />
maintain a health care system which met <strong>the</strong> criteria established by <strong>the</strong> current<br />
Canada Health Act, provision of adequate social services, <strong>and</strong> high quality <strong>and</strong><br />
accessible education, toge<strong>the</strong>r with protection of workers’ rights to organize<br />
<strong>and</strong> bargain collectively. Under <strong>the</strong> economic union, <strong>the</strong> goals of fullemployment<br />
<strong>and</strong> ensuring that all Canadians have a reasonable st<strong>and</strong>ard of<br />
living were prominent. Ano<strong>the</strong>r provision, which was to be justiciable,<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>ned <strong>the</strong> federal government’s commitment to regional equalization<br />
under Section 36 of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act. Henceforth <strong>the</strong> federal government<br />
would be charged with ensuring that “provincial governments have sufficient<br />
revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at<br />
reasonably comparable levels of taxation” <strong>and</strong> to provide “reasonably<br />
comparable economic infrastructures of a national nature in each province <strong>and</strong><br />
territory.” Although <strong>the</strong> precise impact of such language was difficult to<br />
predict, its fiscal consequences were potentially contrary to <strong>the</strong> goals espoused<br />
by liberal political economy. Certainly <strong>the</strong> wish list of policy objectives in <strong>the</strong><br />
non-justiciable clause could have served to legitimate Keynesian policies as or<br />
more easily than neo-conservative ones.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> July 7 accord, Section 121, <strong>the</strong> common market clause, was to be<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>ned by preventing any interprovincial trade barrier “by law or<br />
practice that arbitrarily discriminates on <strong>the</strong> basis of province or territory of<br />
residence, origin or destination <strong>and</strong> unduly impedes <strong>the</strong> efficient functioning<br />
200
Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong> as an Instrument of Competitiveness<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Canadian economic union.” <strong>The</strong> provision was to have been policed by<br />
an independent tribunal which, to strike down a barrier, would have to find that<br />
it (a) was arbitrary <strong>and</strong> (b) unduly impeded <strong>the</strong> economic union. Liberal<br />
political economists were quick to denounce this language as weak <strong>and</strong> limited<br />
(e.g. Corcoran 1992). In addition <strong>the</strong>re was a lengthy list of areas in which<br />
interprovincial trade barriers could continue to function. This included<br />
subsidies or tax incentives aimed at encouraging investment, “reasonable”<br />
public sector investment programs, agricultural marketing <strong>and</strong> supply<br />
management programs, consumer <strong>and</strong> environmental protection, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
establishment <strong>and</strong> maintenance of government-owned monopolies. Clearly<br />
<strong>the</strong>se were much weaker measures than originally proposed by <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
government.<br />
During <strong>the</strong> summer’s negotiations, a number of changes were made to <strong>the</strong><br />
provisions affecting <strong>the</strong> common market. Under <strong>the</strong> August 28 agreement,<br />
Section 121 would remain unchanged <strong>and</strong> a future First Ministers’ Conference<br />
would discuss how best to implement a number of “principles <strong>and</strong><br />
commitments related to <strong>the</strong> Canadian Common Market” that were included in<br />
<strong>the</strong> accord. <strong>The</strong>se principles included a prohibition against governments<br />
erecting interprovincial trade barriers <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> criteria that a possible future<br />
enforcement agency would apply were streng<strong>the</strong>ned slightly. Instead of<br />
having to find that an arbitrarily discriminatory measure unduly impeded <strong>the</strong><br />
efficient functioning of <strong>the</strong> Canadian economic union, it would suffice to find<br />
that such a measure did impede its efficient functioning. However, a lengthy<br />
list of exemptions continued to be appended to this section.<br />
Only in <strong>the</strong> area of transferring powers to <strong>the</strong> provinces did <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown<br />
package reflect <strong>the</strong> federal agenda. Although decentralization is consistent with<br />
<strong>the</strong> preferences of liberal political economy, it is a second best solution unless<br />
combined with measures to prohibit market intervention by all levels of<br />
government. This clearly was <strong>the</strong> purpose of <strong>the</strong> strong economic union<br />
proposals. Without those proposals, decentralization represents only a partial<br />
victory for liberal political economy since <strong>the</strong> interventionism it abhors at <strong>the</strong><br />
federal level could continue at <strong>the</strong> provincial level. Also, <strong>the</strong> non-justiciable<br />
but highly symbolic language on <strong>the</strong> social <strong>and</strong> economic union could be used<br />
to legitimate provincial or popular pressures for federal interventionism.<br />
Conclusions<br />
<strong>The</strong> defeat of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown proposals brought <strong>the</strong> process of<br />
constitutional reform to a no doubt temporary conclusion. No definitive<br />
explanations have yet emerged for <strong>the</strong> defeat of <strong>the</strong> Accord; clearly <strong>the</strong>re were<br />
many factors at work <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir interaction was complex. What can be stated<br />
with some certainty is that <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 constitutional process served to<br />
highlight some of <strong>the</strong> obstacles to implementing a constitutional agenda based<br />
on neo- conservative political economy.<br />
Since <strong>the</strong> introduction of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, it is apparent that a great many<br />
Canadians, especially in English Canada, have become attached to <strong>the</strong><br />
(primarily liberal) individual rights it contains—<strong>the</strong>y have, as Cairns has put it,<br />
become “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Canadians.” But <strong>the</strong>re is little evidence of attachment to<br />
liberal political rights extending to <strong>the</strong> liberal economic values expressed in<br />
<strong>the</strong> federal government’s constitutional agenda. If <strong>the</strong> views of <strong>the</strong> Renewal of<br />
Canada conferences can be taken as in any way representative of informed<br />
Canadian opinion, it would seem that Canadian political culture still inclines<br />
201
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
toward collective social provision <strong>and</strong> tolerates reasonable levels of<br />
government intervention in <strong>the</strong> economy to moderate <strong>the</strong> effects of market<br />
forces. Members of <strong>the</strong> current Canadian government may have become “true<br />
believers” in liberal political economy but, in this respect, <strong>the</strong>ir position is<br />
incongruent with <strong>the</strong> broader political culture.<br />
A second obstacle, of course, is <strong>the</strong> federal system itself. Although many<br />
provinces are prepared to accept some decentralization of <strong>the</strong> federal system,<br />
this is normally accompanied by a desire to maximize <strong>the</strong> powers of <strong>the</strong><br />
provincial government ra<strong>the</strong>r than to repudiate <strong>the</strong> powers of government in<br />
general. Certainly many of <strong>the</strong>m found <strong>the</strong> attachment to pure market<br />
economics represented in <strong>the</strong> economic union proposal to be unacceptable in<br />
practice. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, a number of provinces continue to support <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> a<br />
strong federal role in some areas. In taking this position <strong>the</strong>y seem to be<br />
congruent with <strong>the</strong> preferences of Canadians—at least those outside<br />
Quebec—where opinion poll data regularly demonstrates a preference for a<br />
strong federal government.<br />
Canada’s ongoing constitutional crisis provided an opportunity for Canada’s neoconservatives<br />
to attempt to shape <strong>the</strong> outcome along <strong>the</strong> lines of <strong>the</strong>ir ideology. To<br />
date, however, it appears that Canada’s traditionally statist political culture,<br />
combined with its federal institutions, have been strong enough to dilute that effort<br />
to a very significant degree. Indeed, given <strong>the</strong> context, neo-conservative<br />
constitutional proposals were widely viewed as an unhelpful intrusion into an<br />
already complicated situation. As a result, any renewed federalism that<br />
eventually emerges may not provide a better instrument to achieve<br />
competitiveness, as defined by liberal political economy, than <strong>the</strong> present<br />
arrangements. Yet <strong>the</strong> neo-conservative effort continues. Having failed to<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> Canadian economic union by constitutional means, <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
government, spurred on by business pressure (Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, 5 December<br />
1992:B3), is trying to achieve it through a new approach to intergovernmental<br />
negotiations. If agreed to by <strong>the</strong> provinces, <strong>the</strong> comprehensive negotiating<br />
process, modelled on <strong>the</strong> free trade negotiations with <strong>the</strong> United States, would<br />
force <strong>the</strong> governments to come up with an all-or-nothing agreement by June<br />
30, 1994, <strong>and</strong> to pass enforcing legislation by mid-1995. <strong>The</strong>re are o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
parallels with free trade: many of <strong>the</strong> goals pursued in <strong>the</strong> constitutional talks<br />
may be achievable through <strong>the</strong> provisions of <strong>the</strong> Free Trade Agreement (<strong>and</strong> its<br />
NAFTA successor, if ratified). Informed commentators on <strong>the</strong> latter refer to it<br />
as an “economic <strong>Constitution</strong> for North America.” It remains to be seen<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r this approach will be more successful from <strong>the</strong> neo-conservative<br />
viewpoint than <strong>the</strong> constitutional renewal process ended for <strong>the</strong> moment by <strong>the</strong><br />
October 26 Referendum.<br />
Notes<br />
* An earlier version of this article was prepared for presentation at <strong>the</strong> annual conference of <strong>the</strong><br />
Atlantic Provinces Political Studies Association, Halifax, October 16-18, 1992. I am<br />
grateful for comments received from participants at <strong>the</strong> conference, <strong>and</strong> thanks are also due<br />
to my colleagues Gary Munro <strong>and</strong> Douglas West, <strong>and</strong> an anonymous reviewer, for o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
comments <strong>and</strong> suggestions.<br />
1. <strong>The</strong>se provinces, toge<strong>the</strong>r with Quebec, were also, of course, among <strong>the</strong> most enthusiastic<br />
about <strong>the</strong> centrepiece of <strong>the</strong> neo-conservative policy agenda—free trade with <strong>the</strong> U.S. I am<br />
grateful to an anonymous reviewer for emphasizing this linkage.<br />
2. It might be argued that <strong>the</strong> priority accorded a stronger economic union pre-dated <strong>the</strong><br />
Mulroney government <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> identification of that government with an agenda based<br />
on liberal political economy is <strong>the</strong>refore overdrawn. Certainly <strong>the</strong> Trudeau government<br />
202
Renewed <strong>Federalism</strong> as an Instrument of Competitiveness<br />
advocated a stronger economic union. Two differences between <strong>the</strong> Trudeau government’s<br />
proposals <strong>and</strong> those of <strong>the</strong> Mulroney government should be noted. First, <strong>the</strong> Trudeau<br />
government was “far less accommodating to <strong>the</strong> devolutionary dem<strong>and</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> provinces”<br />
[Russell 1992: 110]. This was a government about to launch an interventionalist “third<br />
national policy.” It was more concerned to assert federal power over <strong>the</strong> economy than to<br />
deny such power to any level of government. Second, <strong>and</strong> consistent with <strong>the</strong> first point, in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Trudeau proposals <strong>the</strong> power of <strong>the</strong> federal government to escape <strong>the</strong> limitations imposed<br />
by stronger language on <strong>the</strong> economic union, on <strong>the</strong> grounds of “overriding national<br />
interest,” were unconstrained by <strong>the</strong> need for provincial approval. In <strong>the</strong> Mulroney proposals<br />
this would only be possible with provincial approval on <strong>the</strong> 7/50 formula. This made federal<br />
intervention less likely <strong>and</strong> was <strong>the</strong>refore more consistent with <strong>the</strong> principles of liberal<br />
political economy.<br />
3. In addition to its utility in constraining domestic government intervention, <strong>the</strong> Business<br />
Council on National Issues pointed to <strong>the</strong> advantages it believed a streng<strong>the</strong>ned economic<br />
union would confer in international trade negotiations: “Canadian negotiators are able to<br />
offer our trading partners improved access to <strong>the</strong> broad, diversified Canadian market. ... Two<br />
concessions made by Canada to win better access to <strong>the</strong> U.S. market during <strong>the</strong> free trade<br />
negotiations illustrate <strong>the</strong> advantage of having a national economic union. Under <strong>the</strong> FTA,<br />
Canada agreed: i) to provide <strong>the</strong> U.S. with certain guarantees with respect to access to<br />
Canadian energy, <strong>and</strong> ii) to modify duty remission schemes <strong>and</strong> certain o<strong>the</strong>r policies related<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Auto Pact. Only a single central government authority, able to negotiate on behalf of<br />
all regions of <strong>the</strong> country, could deliver on <strong>the</strong>se issues. A fragmented Canada would not<br />
have been in a position to offer <strong>the</strong>se concessions“ (Business Council on National Issues<br />
1992, 17).<br />
Bibliography<br />
Bakan, Joel (1992), “Against <strong>Constitution</strong>al Property Rights” in Cameron <strong>and</strong> Smith, eds. (1992),<br />
117-26.<br />
Banting, K. G. (1988), “<strong>Federalism</strong>, Social Reform <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spending Power,” Canadian Public<br />
Policy, XIV Supplement, 581-92.<br />
Beaudoin, Gérald A. <strong>and</strong> Dorothy Dobbie (1992), Report of <strong>the</strong> Special Joint Committee on a<br />
Renewed Canada (Ottawa).<br />
Behiels, Michael D., ed. (1989), <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Primer: Conflicting Views on <strong>the</strong> 1987<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Accord (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press).<br />
Boadway, Robin (1992), <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Division of Powers: An Economic Perspective<br />
(Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada).<br />
Business Council on National Issues (1990a), <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Renewal (Ottawa: BCNI).<br />
Business Council on National Issues (1990b), Canada’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al Options (Ottawa: BCNI).<br />
Business Council on National Issues (1991), Canada <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> 21st Century: Towards a More<br />
Effective <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> a Stronger Economy (Ottawa: BCNI).<br />
Business Council on National Issues (1992), Canada’s Economic Union (Ottawa: BCNI).<br />
Cairns, Alan C. [edited by Douglas E. Williams] (1991), Disruptions: <strong>Constitution</strong>al Struggles,<br />
from <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> to Meech <strong>La</strong>ke (Toronto: McClell<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Stewart).<br />
Cameron, Duncan <strong>and</strong> Miriam Smith, eds. (1992), <strong>Constitution</strong>al Politics: <strong>The</strong> Canadian Forum<br />
Book on <strong>the</strong> Federal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Proposals (Toronto: James Lorimer).<br />
Canada (1991a), Shaping Canada’s Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r: Proposals (Ottawa: Supply <strong>and</strong> Services).<br />
Canada (1991b), Canadian <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> Economic Union: Partnership for Prosperity<br />
(Ottawa: Supply <strong>and</strong> Services).<br />
Canada (1992), Renewal of Canada Conferences: Compendium of Reports (Ottawa): (a)<br />
Economic Union Conference; (b) Institutional Reform Conference; (c) Identity, Rights <strong>and</strong><br />
Values Conference; (d) Division of Powers Conference.<br />
Carmichael, E.A., W. Dobson <strong>and</strong> R.G. Lipsey (1986), “<strong>The</strong> Macdonald Report: Signpost on<br />
Shopping Basket,” Canadian Public Policy 12, Supplement, 23-39.<br />
Clarkson, Stephen (1991), “Disjunctions: Free Trade <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Paradox of Canadian Development”<br />
in Drache <strong>and</strong> Gertler, eds. (1991), 103-26.<br />
Corcoran, Terence (1992), “How <strong>The</strong>y Eviscerated <strong>the</strong> Common Market” Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, 10<br />
July, B2.<br />
Courchene, Thomas J. (1986), Economic Management <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Division of Powers (Toronto:<br />
University of Toronto Press, v.67 Studies of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on <strong>the</strong> Economic Union<br />
<strong>and</strong> Development Prospects for Canada).<br />
203
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Coyne, Deborah (1987), “<strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spending Power Proposals:<br />
Fundamentally Flawed,” in Behiels, ed., (1987), 245-71.<br />
Ernst, Alan (1992), “From Liberal Continentalism to Neoconservatism: North American Free<br />
Trade <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Politics of <strong>the</strong> C.D. Howe Institute,” Studies in Political Economy 39, 109-<br />
140.<br />
Fortin, Pierre (1991), “Exclusive focus on zero inflation: A dangerous proposal,” <strong>The</strong> Network<br />
(November-December), 2-5.<br />
Furlong, Kieran <strong>and</strong> Douglas Moggach (1990), “Efficiency, Competition <strong>and</strong> Full Employment in<br />
Canadian Free Trade Literature,” Studies in Political Economy 33 (Autumn).<br />
Howse, Robert (1991), “Economic Integration or Political Fragmentation?” <strong>The</strong> Network<br />
(October) 14-15.<br />
Jackson, Andrew (1992), “<strong>The</strong> Economic Union” in Cameron <strong>and</strong> Smith, eds. (1992), 70-8.<br />
Jenson, Jane (1989), “Different but not Exceptional,” Canadian Review of Sociology <strong>and</strong><br />
Anthropology.<br />
Jenson, Jane (1990), “Representations in Crisis: <strong>The</strong> Roots of Canada’s Permeable Fordism,”<br />
Canadian Journal of Political Science XXIII, 653-83.<br />
Johnson, A.W. (1992), “A National Government in a Federal State” in Cameron <strong>and</strong> Smith eds.<br />
(1992) 79-91.<br />
Leslie, Peter (1987), Federal State, National Economy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).<br />
Marchak, M. Patricia (1991), <strong>The</strong> Integrated Circus: <strong>The</strong> New Right <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Restructuring of<br />
Global Markets (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press).<br />
McRoberts, Kenneth (1988), Quebec: Social Change <strong>and</strong> Political Crisis (Toronto: McClell<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> Stewart,Third Edition)<br />
Milib<strong>and</strong>, Ralph, Leo Panitch <strong>and</strong> John Saville, eds. (1987), Socialist Register 1987 (London:<br />
Merlin Press).<br />
Mittelstaedt, Martin (1991), “Property-rights plan under fire,” Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, 2 October.<br />
Monahan, Patrick J. (1991), Meech <strong>La</strong>ke: <strong>The</strong> Inside Story (Toronto: University of Toronto<br />
Press).<br />
Norman, Wayne, rapporteur (1991), “Network Seminar on Economics,” in Network Seminar on<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, Taking Stock (Ottawa 1991).<br />
Russell, Peter (1992), <strong>Constitution</strong>al Odyssey: Can Canadians Be A Sovereign People? (Toronto:<br />
University of Toronto Press).<br />
Shields, John (1990), “Democracy Versus Leviathan: <strong>The</strong> State, Democracy <strong>and</strong> Neoconservatism,”<br />
Journal of History <strong>and</strong> Politics 8, 153-74.<br />
Simeon, Richard (1987), “Inside <strong>the</strong> Macdonald Commission,” Studies in Political Economy 22,<br />
167-79.<br />
Simeon, Richard (1989), “Parallelism in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Free Trade Agreement,”<br />
in Whyte <strong>and</strong> Peach eds. (1989), 3-8.<br />
Simeon, Richard (1991), “Globalization <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian Nation State,” in Doern <strong>and</strong> Purchase<br />
(1991), 46-58.<br />
Trudeau, Pierre Elliot (1989), “Who Speaks for Canada: Defining <strong>and</strong> Sustaining a National<br />
Vision,” in Behiels ed. (1989), 60-99.<br />
Whitaker, Reg (1987), “Neo-Conservatism <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> State” in Milib<strong>and</strong>, Panitch <strong>and</strong> Saville, eds.<br />
(1987), 1-31.<br />
Whyte, John D. <strong>and</strong> Ian Peach eds. (1989), Re-Forming Canada? <strong>The</strong> Meaning of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
Accord <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Free Trade Agreement for <strong>the</strong> Canadian State (Kingston: Queen’s<br />
University Institute of Intergovernmental Relations).<br />
204
Lilianne E. Krosenbrink-Gelissen<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong><br />
Aboriginal Women’s Rights:<br />
Conflicts <strong>and</strong> Dilemmas<br />
Abstract<br />
This article examines Indian women’s conflicts <strong>and</strong> dilemmas with <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of 1982 as a result of <strong>the</strong>ir culture <strong>and</strong> gender.<br />
<strong>The</strong>ir dual identity has made it difficult for <strong>the</strong>m to settle on an acceptable<br />
balance between <strong>the</strong>ir aboriginal <strong>and</strong> sexual equality rights. By examing <strong>the</strong><br />
views of <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s Association of Canada, a national, aboriginal<br />
women’s group, <strong>the</strong> author describes Indian women’s aspirations <strong>and</strong><br />
strategies for reformulating an Indian female identity within <strong>the</strong> aboriginal<br />
constitutional reform process.<br />
Résumé<br />
L’article examine les tiraillements que provoquent la <strong>Constitution</strong> de 1982 et<br />
la <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne des droits et libertés chez les amérindiennes en raison de<br />
leurs antécédents culturels et de leur sexe. Leur double identité rend difficile la<br />
réalisation d’un équilibre entre les aspirations à l’autonomie de leurs peuples<br />
et leurs droits à l’égalité sexuelle. À partir des vues adoptées par la Native<br />
Women’s Association of Canada, un organisme national de femmes<br />
autochtones, l’auteure expose les aspirations et les stratégies des<br />
amérindiennes eu égard à la redéfinition de leur identité en tant que femme à<br />
l’occasion de la réforme constitutionnelle.<br />
Having been classified as a Métis, as a non-status person, <strong>and</strong> now as<br />
a status Indian, having lived in a city all my life, <strong>and</strong> having to deal<br />
with discrimination whe<strong>the</strong>r I was or was not a status Indian, I believe<br />
that all native people, including women, have aboriginal rights in<br />
this country no matter where <strong>the</strong>y live, no matter what distinctive<br />
category has been assigned to <strong>the</strong>m. (Aggamaway Pierre, former<br />
president of NWAC 1983:68; emphasis added)<br />
<strong>The</strong> time has come to break down <strong>the</strong> mentality forced upon us as<br />
Aboriginal people by <strong>the</strong> Indian Act. <strong>The</strong> time has come to rebuild<br />
our nations with all of our people — not just those who meet criteria<br />
established not by us but by <strong>the</strong> government. (NWAC, cited in: Govt.<br />
of Canada 1992:32)<br />
Since <strong>the</strong> repatriation of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> establishment of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms in 1982, <strong>the</strong> profile of aboriginal issues in <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian political culture has grown considerably. Three aboriginal issues<br />
have become especially prominent: aboriginal peoples <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> criminal justice<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
system; aboriginal l<strong>and</strong> title; <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> legal rights of aboriginal groups <strong>and</strong><br />
individuals within <strong>the</strong> Canadian state (cf. Hall 1992:42). Aboriginal selfgovernment,<br />
which integrates <strong>the</strong>se three areas, has emerged as a preeminent<br />
issue on <strong>the</strong> aboriginal constitutional reform agenda.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> have vitally affected aboriginal<br />
women as a group. However, aboriginal women’s experiences as well as <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
political concerns have been largely neglected in academic <strong>and</strong> political<br />
discourse on both aboriginal rights <strong>and</strong> women’s rights. Aboriginal rights<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s largely reflect <strong>the</strong> interests of aboriginal men, while women’s rights<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s, until very recently, have largely reflected <strong>the</strong> interests of white,<br />
middle-class women. In both cases, aboriginal women’s distinct perceptions<br />
are ignored. This article focuses on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> women’s<br />
rights specifically as <strong>the</strong>y pertain to First Nations’ women. I will explore <strong>the</strong><br />
nature <strong>and</strong> degree of <strong>the</strong> problems that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> raise<br />
for Indian women, 1 based on <strong>the</strong> views of <strong>the</strong>ir national political body, <strong>the</strong><br />
Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC). Because <strong>the</strong>y face a double<br />
discrimination, in contrast to <strong>the</strong>ir male counterparts, Indian women encounter<br />
special conflicts <strong>and</strong> dilemmas in trying to reconcile, as aboriginal persons <strong>and</strong><br />
as women, <strong>the</strong>ir self-government aspirations <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir sexual equality<br />
aspirations.<br />
First, I will describe NWAC’s political aspirations <strong>and</strong> arguments with respect<br />
to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of 1982. Secondly, I will review sexual<br />
equality as it relates to aboriginal rights within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act of 1982,<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> problems NWAC perceives in this Act. Thirdly, I will briefly review<br />
<strong>the</strong> constitutional process on aboriginal matters (1982-1987) <strong>and</strong> NWAC’s<br />
strategy to re-define <strong>the</strong> aboriginal female identity in order to balance Indian<br />
women’s self-government aspirations with <strong>the</strong>ir feminist aspirations. I will<br />
also discuss Indian women’s problems after <strong>the</strong> 1984 constitutional<br />
amendment <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> new Indian Act of 1985. <strong>The</strong>se problems remain intact <strong>and</strong><br />
have a bearing on NWAC’s strong rejection of <strong>the</strong> aboriginal rights provisions<br />
set out in <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord which went down to defeat on October 26,<br />
1992. Although <strong>the</strong> material for this article primarily covers <strong>the</strong> period from<br />
1982 to 1987, it is also relevant to <strong>the</strong> period from 1987 to 1992. Indian<br />
women’s problems concerning <strong>the</strong> legal protection of <strong>the</strong>ir rights as First<br />
Nations citizens <strong>and</strong> as women remains, <strong>and</strong> NWAC continues to pursue its<br />
political aspirations <strong>and</strong> arguments. 2<br />
<strong>The</strong> Native Women’s Association of Canada<br />
<strong>The</strong> development of a distinct, aboriginal women’s movement in <strong>the</strong> early<br />
1970s is rooted in two global movements; <strong>the</strong> human rights movement <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
women’s movement. <strong>The</strong> first movement redirected <strong>the</strong> public’s <strong>and</strong><br />
politicians’ attention to <strong>the</strong> fundamental group rights of minorities within<br />
nation-states. As a consequence, since 1970 (<strong>and</strong> after <strong>the</strong> withdrawal of <strong>the</strong><br />
1969 “White Paper” plans to terminate Indian people’s separate legal status<br />
<strong>and</strong> special rights), <strong>the</strong> Canadian federal government began to promote selfcontrol<br />
mechanisms on Indian reserves <strong>and</strong> to foster <strong>the</strong> establishment of<br />
national aboriginal organizations that could effectively negotiate with <strong>the</strong><br />
government aboriginal peoples’ future status within <strong>the</strong> Canadian cultural <strong>and</strong><br />
political constellation. <strong>The</strong> second movement brought about a growing<br />
awareness of women’s subordinate status, made women’s issues more<br />
relevant to <strong>the</strong> public discourse, <strong>and</strong> fostered <strong>the</strong> political will to change <strong>the</strong><br />
position of women in society. <strong>The</strong> creation of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on <strong>the</strong><br />
208
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Women’s<br />
Rights: Conflicts <strong>and</strong> Dilemmas<br />
Status of Women (later <strong>the</strong> Advisory Council on <strong>the</strong> Status of Women) by <strong>the</strong><br />
government in 1967 reflects <strong>the</strong>se new developments.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) was established in<br />
1974 to politically represent aboriginal women’s views. NWAC’s m<strong>and</strong>ate<br />
consisted of promoting <strong>the</strong> interests of aboriginal women, <strong>and</strong> changing <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
image among Canadian society at large <strong>and</strong> among aboriginal men. Aboriginal<br />
women felt that existing national aboriginal organizations, particularly <strong>the</strong><br />
National Indian Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood (later <strong>the</strong> Assembly of First Nations), were maledominated<br />
in <strong>the</strong>ir leadership, <strong>the</strong>ir decision-making processes, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
political m<strong>and</strong>ates. As a result, aboriginal women’s particular concerns were<br />
not addressed (cf. Jamieson 1979; Krosenbrink 1991:67-90). Although<br />
NWAC was an Indian (status <strong>and</strong> non-status), Inuit <strong>and</strong> Métis women’s<br />
organization, it predominantly reflected Indian women’s grievances <strong>and</strong><br />
aspirations since <strong>the</strong>y comprised <strong>the</strong> overall majority. To date, Indian men <strong>and</strong><br />
women in particular have serious political differences. <strong>The</strong>se can largely be<br />
accounted for by colonial Indian policies that were sex-discriminatory <strong>and</strong><br />
detrimental to Indian women’s legal <strong>and</strong> socio-political status both in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
own communities <strong>and</strong> in Canadian society as a whole.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Indian Act of 1876 is synonymous with federal Indian policy. To this day,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Indian Act regulates who may legally claim to be Indian <strong>and</strong> controls<br />
Indian people’s lives to a significant degree. Traditional Indian political<br />
institutions were largely replaced <strong>and</strong> Indian male chieftainship was instituted<br />
to back-up <strong>the</strong> colonial system. Women were barred from political decisionmaking<br />
processes. From 1869 until 1951, <strong>the</strong>y could not hold electoral office<br />
nor vote for male representatives in <strong>the</strong>ir own communities. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong><br />
imposed Eurocanadian nuclear family structure, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> roles <strong>and</strong> rights of<br />
women <strong>the</strong>rein, constructed Indian women as a subordinate gender. Women<br />
were assumed to be dependent subjects who could only derive rights from <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
fa<strong>the</strong>rs or husb<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
Most importantly, Indian ethnic belongingness could only be legally<br />
established through <strong>the</strong> male line of descendance. As a result, Indian women<br />
suffered from discrimination on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong>ir sex <strong>and</strong> marital status. Indian<br />
women, in contrast to men, could lose <strong>the</strong>ir legal status as Indians upon<br />
marriage to a non Indian man, including <strong>the</strong>ir offspring. Status Indians, who<br />
were automatically b<strong>and</strong> members, enjoyed certain exclusive rights such as <strong>the</strong><br />
right to live on a reserve, to participate in b<strong>and</strong> politics, <strong>and</strong> to receive free<br />
education <strong>and</strong> health care assistance. More importantly, status Indians had<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir cultural identity officially recognized, including <strong>the</strong>ir link to a homel<strong>and</strong><br />
(reserve). Several o<strong>the</strong>r Sections of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act discriminate against Indian<br />
women (cf. Sections 4, 10-6, 74, 76, 109, <strong>and</strong> 110 of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act 1970).<br />
However, I will limit my comments to Section 12(1)b of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act since it<br />
came to symbolize sexual discrimination against women. Jamieson (1978:1)<br />
summarizes <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act on Indian women who lost <strong>the</strong>ir legal<br />
status as follows:<br />
<strong>The</strong> woman, on marriage, must leave her parents’ home <strong>and</strong> her<br />
reserve. She may not own property on <strong>the</strong> reserve <strong>and</strong> must dispose of<br />
any property she does hold. She may be prevented from inheriting<br />
property left to her by her parents. She cannot take any fur<strong>the</strong>r part in<br />
b<strong>and</strong> business. Her children are not recognized as Indian <strong>and</strong> are<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore denied access to cultural <strong>and</strong> social amenities of <strong>the</strong> Indian<br />
community. And most punitive of all, she may be prevented from<br />
209
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
returning to live with her family on <strong>the</strong> reserve, even if she is in dire<br />
need, very ill, a widow, divorced or separated. Finally, her body may<br />
not be buried on <strong>the</strong> reserve with those of her forebears.<br />
Until <strong>the</strong> Indian Act was amended in 1985, <strong>the</strong> “old” Indian Act implicitly held<br />
19th century European assumptions on women. Legal Indian status<br />
regulations did not respect <strong>the</strong> cultural variety of Indian people’s social <strong>and</strong><br />
political organizations. <strong>The</strong>y imposed a uniform, Eurocanadian system<br />
reflecting racial images of Indians <strong>and</strong> male dominance in gender relations.<br />
Gradual internalization of <strong>the</strong> western notions of femaleness distorted <strong>the</strong><br />
Indian consciousness. Over <strong>the</strong> years, sexually discriminatory regulations had<br />
dramatic consequences not only for women, who lost <strong>the</strong>ir legal status as<br />
Indians by being deprived of <strong>the</strong>ir birth right, but also in terms of gender<br />
relations within Indian communities. <strong>The</strong> <strong>La</strong>vell <strong>and</strong> Bedard cases of 1973 as<br />
well as <strong>the</strong> Lovelace case of 1977, involving non-status Indian women who<br />
fought to regain <strong>the</strong>ir Indian rights, proved that Indian women could hope for<br />
little support from Indian men. Male Indian political leaders merely used<br />
women’s grievances with <strong>the</strong> Indian Act to force <strong>the</strong> federal government into<br />
negotiating a revised Indian Act (or better, a repeal) to allow for Indian selfgovernment<br />
(cf. note 3; Fiske 1992:12-4; Krosenbrink 1991: 84-102; Silman<br />
1987).<br />
<strong>The</strong> 1970s can be characterized as a period when Indian men <strong>and</strong> women,<br />
through <strong>the</strong>ir political organizations, engaged in often bitter debates over <strong>the</strong><br />
nature of “Indian rights” <strong>and</strong> “women’s rights.” It appeared that <strong>the</strong> National<br />
Indian Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood more or less interpreted “Indian rights” to mean rights to<br />
which only status Indian men were entitled. <strong>The</strong> Native Women’s Association<br />
argued that Indian women did not fight for sexual equality as such; <strong>the</strong>y fought<br />
for “Indian rights for Indian women” which were withheld through both <strong>the</strong><br />
legal instruments of <strong>the</strong> federal government <strong>and</strong> male chauvinist attitudes<br />
within b<strong>and</strong> councils on <strong>the</strong> reserves. Thus, Indian women felt that <strong>the</strong>re was a<br />
serious denial through sex discrimination of equal Indian rights for Indian<br />
women (ibid).<br />
Considering <strong>the</strong> different experiences of Indian men <strong>and</strong> women, it is no<br />
wonder that NWAC formulated different goals within <strong>the</strong> framework of<br />
constitutional aboriginal reform. All national, aboriginal organizations,<br />
including NWAC, focused on defining <strong>the</strong> nature of self-government within<br />
<strong>the</strong> constitutional aboriginal rights provision. However, NWAC claimed that<br />
<strong>the</strong> principle of sexual equality between aboriginal men <strong>and</strong> women must<br />
clearly <strong>and</strong> constitutionally st<strong>and</strong> above <strong>and</strong> permeate all aspects of aboriginal<br />
rights, including self-government (NWAC 1980, 1981). Indian women, <strong>and</strong><br />
also Métis <strong>and</strong> Inuit women, wanted clear, unambiguous <strong>and</strong> adequately<br />
secured constitutional protection for aboriginal women. Thus, <strong>the</strong> main issue<br />
for NWAC was that aboriginal self-government, irrespective of its diversity,<br />
should always legally guarantee <strong>and</strong> practically reflect gender equality.<br />
NWAC’s sexual equality aspirations grounded its arguments for rejecting <strong>the</strong><br />
aboriginal self-government wording of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord. NWAC<br />
primarily concerns itself with constitutional protection of aboriginal women’s<br />
rights. <strong>The</strong> Association considers law a valid instrument in seeking changes in<br />
women’s status <strong>and</strong> ensuring <strong>the</strong>ir full participation within <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />
aboriginal communities. So, when speaking in terms of legal rights, what is it<br />
that <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s Association of Canada explicitly wants?<br />
210
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Women’s<br />
Rights: Conflicts <strong>and</strong> Dilemmas<br />
Aboriginal Women’s Rights<br />
Part I of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act (Sections 1-34) is referred to as <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms. <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> sets out basic guarantees of<br />
rights <strong>and</strong> freedoms that apply to all Canadians, including aboriginal persons.<br />
According to Section 15(1):<br />
Every individual is equal before <strong>and</strong> under <strong>the</strong> law <strong>and</strong> has <strong>the</strong> right to<br />
<strong>the</strong> equal protection <strong>and</strong> equal benefit of <strong>the</strong> law without<br />
discrimination <strong>and</strong>, in particular, without discrimination based on<br />
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or<br />
physical disability (Govt. of Canada 1981:6).<br />
Gibson (1985:45) argues that before <strong>the</strong> establishment of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was<br />
no constitutional protection for aboriginal persons against discrimination<br />
based on <strong>the</strong>ir aboriginal ancestry. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, Section 91(24) of <strong>the</strong><br />
British North America Act provided <strong>the</strong> Canadian state with <strong>the</strong> constitutional<br />
right to discriminate particularly against Indian persons. However, <strong>the</strong> Indian<br />
Act is now subject to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
Section 15 was not to come into effect until three years after patriation of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> (April 17, 1985) to enable <strong>the</strong> federal <strong>and</strong> provincial governments<br />
to make <strong>the</strong> necessary adjustments to <strong>the</strong>ir laws. One of <strong>the</strong> many reasons for<br />
<strong>the</strong> three year delay was to allow time to revise <strong>the</strong> Indian Act (cf. Govt. of<br />
Canada 1982:13-4).<br />
Section 15 makes it difficult for <strong>the</strong> courts to restrict sexual equality. <strong>The</strong> listed<br />
grounds, such as race or sex, serve to alert <strong>the</strong> courts that any form of<br />
discrimination should be combatted in a more rigorous fashion than was<br />
previously <strong>the</strong> case. For instance, that marital status is not spelled out in <strong>the</strong><br />
equality rights provision does not mean that discrimination is allowed. Should<br />
an Indian woman ever decide to litigate on <strong>the</strong> grounds that <strong>the</strong> sexdiscriminatory<br />
provisions of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act violate Section 15 of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
(after April 17, 1985), it is most likely that <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court would be<br />
compelled to declare <strong>the</strong> offending Sections of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act invalid. Thus, a<br />
decision such as in <strong>the</strong> <strong>La</strong>vell case could not be repeated (cf. Mahoney 1992;<br />
NWAC Newsletter 1, 5, 1982:7). 3<br />
<strong>The</strong> sexual equality rights in Section 15 refer to individual human rights which<br />
are never<strong>the</strong>less quasi-collective human rights as well. Indian women, as a<br />
group, have suffered as a result of <strong>the</strong> sex-discriminatory provisions of <strong>the</strong><br />
Indian Act (cf. Richstone 1983:42-43). Affirmative action, as set out in<br />
Section 15(2) of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act 1982, will enable aboriginal women in<br />
general, <strong>and</strong> Indian women in particular, to fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>ir needs <strong>and</strong> goals as a<br />
collectivity (ibid:52).<br />
Section 15, albeit crucially important to aboriginal women, is not of primary<br />
concern to <strong>the</strong>m. Whereas <strong>the</strong> women’s movement in Canada focuses on<br />
Section 15, <strong>the</strong> aboriginal women’s movement focuses on Section 25 of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. 4 <strong>The</strong> reason for this difference may be that equality rights, as<br />
formulated in Section 15, are perceived as non-aboriginal, liberal democratic<br />
concepts that may contravene <strong>the</strong> cultural traditions of aboriginal peoples. For<br />
instance, <strong>the</strong> traditionally exclusive right of Iroquois women to choose a<br />
(male) chief violates <strong>the</strong> rights of Iroquois men as stipulated in Section 15 of<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> (cf. Tooker 1984, in Spittal 1990). Never<strong>the</strong>less, we should not<br />
underestimate <strong>the</strong> power of Section 15. It dictated foremost a repeal of all<br />
211
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Sections in <strong>the</strong> “old” Indian Act which discriminate against Indian women on<br />
<strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong>ir sex <strong>and</strong> marital status. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, according to Section 28:<br />
Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing anything in this <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>the</strong> rights <strong>and</strong> freedoms<br />
referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male <strong>and</strong> female persons<br />
(Govt. of Canada 1981:10).<br />
This section is meant to ensure that “person” includes females as well as males.<br />
It should restrict loopholes for <strong>the</strong> provinces to legislate outside total<br />
agreement with <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights. Thus, Section 28 does assert <strong>the</strong> primacy of<br />
sexual equality rights over all o<strong>the</strong>r <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights, <strong>and</strong> in this respect it is<br />
important to aboriginal women as well (Gibson 1985:48-49; Mahoney<br />
1992:242; NWAC Newsletter, 1,5, 1982:8-9). <strong>The</strong> term “notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing”<br />
could eventually create problems. Although it may be presumed that <strong>the</strong> courts<br />
will subject <strong>the</strong> collective rights of aboriginal peoples to individual equality<br />
rights, <strong>the</strong>re is no absolute guarantee. No matter how important to aboriginal<br />
women’s rights, Section 28 could be used to debilitate <strong>the</strong> collective rights of<br />
aboriginal peoples which are referred to in Section 25:<br />
<strong>The</strong> guarantee in this <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of certain rights <strong>and</strong> freedoms shall not<br />
be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty<br />
or o<strong>the</strong>r rights or freedoms that pertain to <strong>the</strong> aboriginal peoples of<br />
Canada including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been<br />
recognized by <strong>the</strong> Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; <strong>and</strong> (b)<br />
any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by <strong>the</strong> aboriginal peoples<br />
of Canada by way of l<strong>and</strong> claims settlement (Govt. of Canada<br />
1981:9).<br />
This Section creates an exemption for aboriginal rights from being subjected to<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights. It ensures that Section 15 will not be used to strike down any<br />
collective rights of <strong>the</strong> aboriginal peoples. 5 In contrast to Section 15, Section<br />
25 does nothing to advance <strong>the</strong> position of <strong>the</strong> aboriginal peoples (Gibson<br />
1985:46). Aboriginal rights also refer to <strong>the</strong> collective right of aboriginal<br />
peoples to decide group membership for <strong>the</strong>mselves. <strong>The</strong> Indian Act,<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore, violates Section 25 of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, for it prevents Indian people from<br />
determining Indian status <strong>and</strong> b<strong>and</strong> membership as long as <strong>the</strong> Indian Act<br />
remains intact. Within this framework, a repeal of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act is necessary<br />
as well. 6 However, <strong>the</strong> important question is whe<strong>the</strong>r Section 25 is subject to<br />
<strong>the</strong> equality rights of individuals. If not, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> rights of aboriginal women in<br />
aboriginal constitutions could be easily ignored. Indian self-governing b<strong>and</strong>s<br />
may design constitutions that provide for <strong>the</strong> equality rights of Indian men <strong>and</strong><br />
women, but <strong>the</strong>y could be easily modified to do away with <strong>the</strong> rights of women<br />
by majority consent of <strong>the</strong> b<strong>and</strong>. Given <strong>the</strong> internalization of patriarchal<br />
notions as a result of <strong>the</strong> sex-discriminatory provisions of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act,<br />
Section 25 could represent a potential risk to Indian women that <strong>the</strong>ir equality<br />
rights may be denied by <strong>the</strong>ir own communities. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, it could mean<br />
that Indian self-government does not provide uniform equality rights for<br />
Indian men <strong>and</strong> women (Richstone 1983:55). <strong>The</strong> uneasiness experienced by<br />
Indian women in trying to reconcile <strong>the</strong>ir culture (Section 25) <strong>and</strong> gender<br />
(Section 15) was clearly expressed by <strong>the</strong> president of <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s<br />
Association during 1992 debates on <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord. She argued<br />
that when First Nations exercise powers under self-government, individuals<br />
deserve a guarantee of <strong>the</strong>ir basic human rights as set out in Section 15. If a<br />
First Nation should develop its own aboriginal <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong><br />
212
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Women’s<br />
Rights: Conflicts <strong>and</strong> Dilemmas<br />
Freedoms, it must include equality. This should be entrenched in <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> be enforceable in courts. Only <strong>the</strong>n would she agree to<br />
replacing <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> (cf. note 4; Govt. of Canada 1992:32).<br />
Indian women’s serious concerns are closely related to <strong>the</strong>ir experience. When<br />
local Indian control was established in <strong>the</strong> early 1970s—meaning that Indian<br />
agents as government representatives left <strong>the</strong> reserves, <strong>the</strong>reby assigning <strong>the</strong><br />
execution of Indian Act regulations to b<strong>and</strong> councils— differences among<br />
b<strong>and</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> treatment of women became evident. Whereas one b<strong>and</strong> might<br />
have decided not to evict Indian women upon loss of <strong>the</strong>ir legal status, a<br />
neighbouring b<strong>and</strong> might have done just <strong>the</strong> opposite. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, in 1981,<br />
b<strong>and</strong>s were given <strong>the</strong> opportunity to request suspension of Section 12(1)b of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Indian Act although less than twenty percent of all b<strong>and</strong>s appears to have<br />
done so (Holmes 1987:6n6; NWAC Newsletter 1, 3, 1982:18).<br />
<strong>The</strong> relationship between Sections 15 <strong>and</strong> 28—in providing for (individual)<br />
sexual equality rights—<strong>and</strong> Section 25—in providing for (collective)<br />
aboriginal rights—is seriously strained. Given <strong>the</strong> experiences that Indian<br />
women, in particular, have faced as a result of <strong>the</strong>ir dual discrimination, <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> presented <strong>the</strong>m with a dilemma. What rights should come first, those<br />
relating to <strong>the</strong>ir gender or those relating to <strong>the</strong>ir aboriginal ancestry?<br />
Feminist groups have continually argued that sexual equality under all<br />
circumstances should prevail over aboriginal self-government. <strong>The</strong> National<br />
Indian Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood (later <strong>the</strong> Assembly of First Nations) has always taken <strong>the</strong><br />
position that no constitutional provision may supercede <strong>the</strong> aboriginal<br />
peoples’ right to self-government, including sexual equality rights. To<br />
aboriginal women, <strong>and</strong> most particularly Indian women, <strong>the</strong> situation was not<br />
that clear at all. <strong>The</strong>y could not escape conflicts in reconciling <strong>the</strong>ir gender <strong>and</strong><br />
cultures. <strong>The</strong> implications of <strong>the</strong> sex-dicriminatory status regulations of <strong>the</strong><br />
Indian Act play a crucial role in <strong>the</strong>ir experiences of conflict <strong>and</strong> dilemma (cf.<br />
Duclos 1990:369).<br />
<strong>The</strong> aboriginal rights provision considered <strong>the</strong> most important victory by<br />
aboriginal peoples is Section 35:<br />
(1). <strong>The</strong> existing aboriginal <strong>and</strong> treaty rights of <strong>the</strong> aboriginal peoples<br />
of Canada are hereby recognized <strong>and</strong> affirmed. (2). In this Act,<br />
“aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes <strong>the</strong> Indian, Inuit <strong>and</strong> Metis<br />
peoples of Canada’ (Govt. of Canada 1981:11).<br />
Although Section 35 is not part of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re is no doubt that <strong>the</strong> rights<br />
described in it are as effectively enforceable by <strong>the</strong> courts as <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights<br />
(Gibson 1985: 46-47). Its entrenchment was vigorously fought for by<br />
aboriginal peoples, especially during <strong>the</strong> November 1981 <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
repatriation upheavals. Because of its entrenchment, aboriginal peoples<br />
regained new pride in <strong>the</strong>ir distinct cultures <strong>and</strong> identities. For instance, <strong>the</strong><br />
inclusion of <strong>the</strong> Métis as an aboriginal people gave a considerable boost to <strong>the</strong><br />
Métis’ self-image.<br />
<strong>The</strong> term “existing” aboriginal rights in Section 35 creates ambiguity. With<br />
reference to aboriginal women, “existing” aboriginal rights could be<br />
interpreted as <strong>the</strong> perpetuation of existing discrimination, against Indian<br />
women in particular, as stipulated in <strong>the</strong> Indian Act (NWAC Newsletter, 1, 5,<br />
1982:10). For this reason, NWAC insisted that not only sexual discrimination<br />
213
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
be repealed but also that women <strong>and</strong> children who had previously lost <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
Indian rights as a result of sex discrimination should have <strong>the</strong>ir rights restored.<br />
<strong>The</strong> meaning of aboriginal rights is not clear. For <strong>the</strong> purpose of defining <strong>the</strong>se<br />
rights, Section 37 of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> provided for a negotiation process<br />
between state authorities <strong>and</strong> national aboriginal organizations. Aboriginal<br />
peoples in general refer to aboriginal rights as a multitude of socio-economic,<br />
political, legal <strong>and</strong> cultural rights. More specifically, <strong>the</strong>se rights are integrated<br />
in <strong>the</strong> aboriginal peoples’ concept of aboriginal self-government which has<br />
become <strong>the</strong> single most important issue on <strong>the</strong> agenda for Section 35<br />
discussions. Nei<strong>the</strong>r First Nations nor <strong>the</strong> federal government are precise<br />
about what self-government means. Most generally, it refers to a collective<br />
right of <strong>the</strong> aboriginal peoples—in accordance with <strong>the</strong>ir own traditions—to<br />
control <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>the</strong>ir resources, <strong>the</strong>ir own destiny <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own political<br />
future.<br />
Whereas <strong>the</strong> collective rights of aboriginal peoples are referred to in Sections<br />
25 <strong>and</strong> 35, Sections 15 <strong>and</strong> 28 pertain to <strong>the</strong> equality rights of individuals.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is an obvious tension between individual <strong>and</strong> collective rights of<br />
aboriginal peoples that creates a serious dilemma for Indian women: if <strong>the</strong>y<br />
give priority to women’s rights, <strong>the</strong>y might endanger <strong>the</strong> collective (selfgoverning)<br />
rights of Indians; <strong>and</strong> should <strong>the</strong>y give priority to <strong>the</strong> collective<br />
rights of Indians, <strong>the</strong>y risk sexual discrimination by <strong>the</strong>ir own people. As a<br />
result of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act system, <strong>the</strong> collective rights of Indians as a group<br />
collide with individual Indian women’s rights. Thus, Inuit <strong>and</strong> Métis women’s<br />
issues are more integrated into community issues <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y do not experience<br />
conflicts <strong>and</strong> dilemmas in <strong>the</strong>ir political aspirations to <strong>the</strong> extent that Indian<br />
women do. As yet, <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s Association has argued that women do<br />
not see <strong>the</strong>ir rights as First Nations citizens <strong>and</strong> as women explicitly protected<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Process: <strong>The</strong> Indian Traditional Mo<strong>the</strong>rhood<br />
Concept in Defence of Aboriginal Women’s Rights<br />
For <strong>the</strong> purpose of defining “aboriginal rights” in Section 35 of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> Act <strong>the</strong> federal government invited <strong>the</strong> Assembly of First Nations<br />
(AFN), <strong>the</strong> Native Council of Canada, <strong>the</strong> Métis National Council, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada to participate in <strong>the</strong> First Ministers’ Conferences on<br />
Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Matters that took place in 1983, 1984, 1985 <strong>and</strong><br />
1987. Both <strong>the</strong> federal government <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s Association’s<br />
male counterpart, <strong>the</strong> AFN, objected to its participation. <strong>The</strong> government<br />
denied Indian women a formal seat on <strong>the</strong> grounds that NWAC was not<br />
democratic since it only represented women. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> government felt<br />
that aboriginal women were already represented in <strong>the</strong> negotiation process by<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir respective national (male-dominated) organizations. <strong>The</strong> Assembly of<br />
First Nations objected because it feared that Indian women would steer <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional discussions away from self-government by focussing on <strong>the</strong><br />
sexual equality issue. Hence, <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s Association was only<br />
accorded observer status. Even after 1987, <strong>and</strong> to this day, NWAC has never<br />
won a seat at <strong>the</strong> constitutional table. 7<br />
In contrast to <strong>the</strong> AFN, <strong>the</strong> federal government never<strong>the</strong>less recognized <strong>the</strong><br />
need to address aboriginal women’s rights within <strong>the</strong> constitutional context.<br />
Except for NWAC, each one of <strong>the</strong> four national aboriginal organizations<br />
received extra funds to study sexual equality rights (Krosenbrink 1986;<br />
214
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Women’s<br />
Rights: Conflicts <strong>and</strong> Dilemmas<br />
Secretary of State 1985:21). However, it took until May 1984 before <strong>the</strong><br />
Assembly of First Nations was willing to discuss with <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s<br />
Association <strong>the</strong> issue of sexual equality among Indian men <strong>and</strong> women. AFN<br />
never<strong>the</strong>less insisted that sexual equality was a matter that could only be dealt<br />
with by individual b<strong>and</strong>s once self-government was constitutionally<br />
entrenched as an aboriginal right <strong>and</strong> became operational. Hence, <strong>the</strong> AFN did<br />
not consider non-status Indian women wrongly deprived of <strong>the</strong>ir birth rights or<br />
entitled to participate in b<strong>and</strong> decisions on developing self-government<br />
(Krosenbrink 1991:160-4).<br />
NWAC’s fundamental condition that <strong>the</strong> principle of sexual equality should<br />
constitutionally st<strong>and</strong> above aboriginal self-government aimed to clearly<br />
guarantee that status as well as (in future reinstated) non-status Indian women<br />
have an equal right to participate in First Nations community life <strong>and</strong> would<br />
not encounter discrimination by b<strong>and</strong> councils under self-government (cf.<br />
NWAC Newsletter, 1, 8, 1983:3; Silman 1987:219). <strong>The</strong> following quote from<br />
NWAC (1984:15) is most illustrative:<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is an obvious contradiction in attempting to negotiate<br />
[aboriginal] rights that predate <strong>the</strong> very existence of <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
government if <strong>the</strong> only base for recognition is a registration system<br />
[Indian Act] created by that government. It is <strong>the</strong>refore essential that<br />
all aboriginal people, whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>y possess a government<br />
number, realize <strong>the</strong> potential consequences of endorsing <strong>the</strong> status<br />
quo.<br />
Indian women did not want to wait until Indian self-government was<br />
established on reserves for fear that <strong>the</strong> b<strong>and</strong>s would not treat <strong>the</strong>m fairly <strong>and</strong><br />
would not be willing to restore <strong>the</strong>ir rights. Whe<strong>the</strong>r sexual inequality is<br />
au<strong>the</strong>ntically Indian or an historical offshoot of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act is not important.<br />
Nowadays, Indian women, as well as Metis <strong>and</strong> Inuit women, do not wish to be<br />
sexually discriminated against ei<strong>the</strong>r by law or in practice:<br />
In any case <strong>the</strong> appeal to tradition is irrelevant. If it had been part of<br />
our tradition to castrate first born males, this would not make it right<br />
or just to practise now. <strong>The</strong>re is always room for improvement (IRIW<br />
1980:5).<br />
As long as <strong>the</strong> constitutional right of aboriginal self-government was not<br />
entrenched, <strong>the</strong> Indian Act remained a regulating force. NWAC realized that<br />
one cannot do away with <strong>the</strong> Indian Act overnight, because several generations<br />
of Indians had based <strong>the</strong>ir identity <strong>and</strong> existence on it. <strong>The</strong>refore, a lot of Indian<br />
b<strong>and</strong>s would most likely establish <strong>the</strong>ir self-government, including b<strong>and</strong><br />
membership, along <strong>the</strong> lines of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act regulations. <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
equality guarantees were perceived as a prerequisite to aboriginal selfgovernment<br />
or a review of <strong>the</strong> Indian Act. NWAC eventually aimed to legally<br />
upgrade <strong>the</strong> socio-political status of Indian women in particular. Whoever or<br />
whatever would decide membership in <strong>the</strong> future, Indian women were not<br />
prepared to tolerate sexual discrimination anymore. As one of my female<br />
Indian informants summarized: “Sexual equality in law will help women to<br />
resume <strong>the</strong>ir traditional roles <strong>and</strong> to exercise <strong>the</strong> power that comes with <strong>the</strong>m<br />
naturally” (cited in: Krosenbrink 1991:139).<br />
215
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
To NWAC <strong>and</strong> its constituency, sexual equality comprised a whole range of<br />
issues, such as employment, political decision-making, recognition of<br />
women’s roles in communities, political respect by b<strong>and</strong> councils <strong>and</strong>, most<br />
importantly, <strong>the</strong> equal right to transmit status <strong>and</strong> b<strong>and</strong> membership to <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
families. <strong>The</strong> main problems for NWAC were: how to resolve differences of<br />
opinion with <strong>the</strong> Assembly of First Nations; how to get involved in <strong>and</strong> have an<br />
impact on decision-making in <strong>the</strong> constitutional process despite Indian<br />
women’s marginalization; <strong>and</strong>, how to legitimatize <strong>the</strong> notion that aboriginal<br />
self-governing powers should not extend beyond <strong>the</strong> sexual equality<br />
provisions of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> (meaning that NWAC’s political claims contravened<br />
<strong>the</strong> principle of aboriginal self-government).<br />
Within <strong>the</strong> aboriginal constitutional process from 1982 to 1987, NWAC began<br />
to re-define “female Indian identity” <strong>and</strong> to re-formulate its political goals to<br />
make <strong>the</strong>m valid <strong>and</strong> relevant within <strong>the</strong> self-government negotiations. <strong>The</strong><br />
Native Women’s Association knew that <strong>the</strong> federal government was in no<br />
position to oppose its objectives. Through equality provisions in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>,<br />
as well as through international legal obligations, <strong>the</strong> government was<br />
compelled to resolve sexual discrimination against Indian women before April<br />
17, 1985. <strong>The</strong> federal government in particular appeared prepared to repeal <strong>the</strong><br />
sex-discriminatory status regulations in <strong>the</strong> Indian Act while at <strong>the</strong> same time<br />
providing for an equality guarantee within <strong>the</strong> aboriginal rights Section of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> Act.<br />
In order to make its claims relevant, particularly to its male counterpart, <strong>the</strong><br />
Assembly of First Nations, NWAC began to operationalize <strong>the</strong> Indian people’s<br />
traditional mo<strong>the</strong>rhood notion. Traditional Indian mo<strong>the</strong>rhood reflects Indian<br />
men’s <strong>and</strong> women’s contemporary views of women’s past, de-symbolizes<br />
male authority, <strong>and</strong> expresses women’s distinct double identity as women <strong>and</strong><br />
as Indians. During fieldwork in Ottawa (1985, 1986, <strong>and</strong> 1987) among<br />
national aboriginal organizations, all male <strong>and</strong> female informants claimed that<br />
aboriginal women from all different cultures traditionally played central roles.<br />
Just as in o<strong>the</strong>r societies, <strong>and</strong> in o<strong>the</strong>r times, Indian women were<br />
predominantly defined by <strong>the</strong>ir reproductive role. However, this role was<br />
esteemed much differently. Indian women were traditionally responsible for<br />
<strong>the</strong> biological <strong>and</strong> cultural continuity of <strong>the</strong>ir communities. In <strong>the</strong> “old days,”<br />
<strong>the</strong>y were much respected for <strong>the</strong>ir ability to give birth <strong>and</strong> for <strong>the</strong>ir family <strong>and</strong><br />
community roles. This was so strongly felt that metaphors of mo<strong>the</strong>rhood<br />
came to st<strong>and</strong> for female Indian identity. Mottos such as: “Indian women are<br />
<strong>the</strong> centre <strong>and</strong> wheel of life”; “Women are <strong>the</strong> core of Indian cultures”; “Indian<br />
women are <strong>the</strong> ultimate leaders”; “Women are <strong>the</strong> keepers of Indian cultures”;<br />
<strong>and</strong> “Without Indian women <strong>the</strong>re would be no Indian nations” directly refer to<br />
<strong>the</strong> symbolism of traditional Indian mo<strong>the</strong>rhood. <strong>The</strong>re is no question that<br />
Indian people recognize cultural diversity among <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>and</strong> differences<br />
in sociopolitical organization. <strong>The</strong>y are well aware that women in traditionally<br />
matrilineal cultures have more fundamental rights than women in patrilineal<br />
cultures. In spite of this, Indian men <strong>and</strong> women confirm that <strong>the</strong>re was still<br />
more equality among <strong>the</strong> sexes in all traditional Indian cultures than non-<br />
Indians would ever recognize. For example, <strong>La</strong>vell, an important<br />
spokesperson for <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s Association during <strong>the</strong> early 1970s,<br />
argued:<br />
216<br />
[Indian] women had much respect <strong>and</strong> had decision-making powers<br />
within <strong>the</strong>ir own community. Perhaps it was not as evident to <strong>the</strong>
anthropologist, but within our system it was <strong>the</strong>re (cited in: House of<br />
Commons:15).<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, it was claimed:<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Women’s<br />
Rights: Conflicts <strong>and</strong> Dilemmas<br />
<strong>The</strong> fundamental role of <strong>the</strong> Indian mo<strong>the</strong>r as a basic link in <strong>the</strong><br />
cultural <strong>and</strong> linguistic continuity must not be underestimated if <strong>the</strong><br />
preservation <strong>and</strong> growth of <strong>the</strong> Indian way of life in Canada is indeed<br />
a priority (IRIW 1979:14).<br />
Irrespective of <strong>the</strong> many cultural differences, Indian men <strong>and</strong> women do<br />
believe that <strong>the</strong>ir traditional societies were egalitarian; that <strong>the</strong> sexes had<br />
different but equal socio-political positions (Krosenbrink 1991:44-8, 123-8). 8<br />
By contextualizing <strong>and</strong> exploring <strong>the</strong> functional mechanisms of <strong>the</strong><br />
ideological concept of traditional Indian mo<strong>the</strong>rhood, its importance for a<br />
political strategy becomes comprehensible.<br />
Unity, Boundary Establishment, <strong>and</strong> Mobilization<br />
Firstly, NWAC supported <strong>the</strong> Assembly of First Nations’ notion of selfgovernment:<br />
As women we speak for ourselves, our children <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> generations<br />
yet unborn, <strong>and</strong> join with <strong>the</strong> aboriginal peoples of this l<strong>and</strong> in unity to<br />
declare that our rights, our nations <strong>and</strong> our sovereignty are ours to<br />
proclaim <strong>and</strong> ours to exercise (NWAC 1980).<br />
Secondly, by using <strong>the</strong> ideological concept of traditional Indian mo<strong>the</strong>rhood,<br />
NWAC facilitated group cohesiveness since Indian, Inuit <strong>and</strong> Métis women<br />
<strong>and</strong> men agreed upon it. <strong>La</strong>stly, <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rhood concept was instrumental to<br />
<strong>the</strong> aboriginal peoples’ political opposition to Canadian society at large. <strong>The</strong><br />
Federal government’s colonial policies were blamed for <strong>the</strong> current gender<br />
inequality within Indian communities which is considered inherently un-<br />
Indian. Paula Gunn Allen (a famous Pueblo Indian woman, feminist, scholar<br />
<strong>and</strong> poet) claims that gender equality inhered in all traditional First Nations’<br />
cultures of <strong>the</strong> North American hemisphere: “Among <strong>the</strong> major conceptual<br />
gifts First Nation people shared with <strong>the</strong> world is <strong>the</strong> concept of <strong>the</strong> central<br />
value of women in every sphere of community life; that <strong>the</strong> proper place of<br />
women, especially of elder women, is at <strong>the</strong> center of <strong>the</strong> spiritual, social,<br />
political, <strong>and</strong> economic life of <strong>the</strong> nation” (1992:3). Hence, NWAC did not<br />
have to publicly blame <strong>the</strong> AFN for its reluctance to perceive women’s issues<br />
as relevant. AFN’s statement (1984:10-1) on Indian women’s sexual equality<br />
during <strong>the</strong> 1984 constitutional conference is most illustrative:<br />
<strong>The</strong> discrimination <strong>the</strong>y [women] suffered was forced upon us by<br />
white colonial government through <strong>the</strong> Indian Act. It was not <strong>the</strong><br />
result of our traditional laws, <strong>and</strong> in fact it would not have occurred<br />
under our traditional laws. We must make it perfectly clear why we<br />
feel so strongly that we must control our own citizenship (...).<br />
<strong>The</strong> AFN maintains that “equality” does already exist within <strong>the</strong><br />
traditional “citizenship code” of all First Nations people.<br />
217
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
As <strong>the</strong> president of NWAC argued earlier: “B<strong>and</strong> governments must not mimic<br />
<strong>the</strong> discriminatory practices of <strong>the</strong> dominant governments” (NWAC<br />
Newsletter, 1, 8, 1983, p. 3). And, in accordance with <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s<br />
Association’s Declaration of Principles <strong>and</strong> Beliefs (1980):<br />
We believe that it is <strong>the</strong> right of <strong>the</strong> aboriginal people to determine<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir own citizenship, <strong>and</strong> that it is <strong>the</strong> right of all people of aboriginal<br />
descent who so wish to be recognized as such ... We believe that it is<br />
<strong>the</strong> fundamental right of Native women to have access <strong>and</strong><br />
participation in any decision-making process, <strong>and</strong> full protection of<br />
<strong>the</strong> law without discrimination based on sex or marital status ... We<br />
believe that our future lies as sovereign nations with our rights as<br />
women protected. We desire to live under a government of our own<br />
making.<br />
<strong>The</strong> traditional Indian mo<strong>the</strong>rhood concept is an integral part of <strong>the</strong> traditional<br />
culture argument used in <strong>the</strong> Indian people’s struggle for self-government.<br />
Indian self-government is only attainable when cultural traditions<br />
reestablished. Hence, <strong>the</strong>re cannot be true Indian self-government without<br />
sexual equality. NWAC’s arguments <strong>the</strong>refore compelled <strong>the</strong> AFN to discuss<br />
sexual equality within <strong>the</strong> aboriginal constitutional context.<br />
Legitimization of NWAC’s Separate Existence <strong>and</strong> Exclusive M<strong>and</strong>ate<br />
<strong>The</strong> traditional mo<strong>the</strong>rhood concept is inextricably tied to notions of care as<br />
<strong>the</strong>y apply to women. Indian women are traditionally held responsible for<br />
caring about <strong>the</strong> cultural <strong>and</strong> biological continuity of <strong>the</strong>ir families <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
communities. Firstly, NWAC exp<strong>and</strong>ed <strong>the</strong>se notions of care to legitimize<br />
Indian women’s political separateness, respecting both <strong>the</strong>ir organization <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir aspirations:<br />
In fact, all subject areas have a direct affect on us, as <strong>the</strong>y do on all<br />
segments of aboriginal society. However, <strong>the</strong>re are some issues<br />
which are of more particular interest to us because of our special role<br />
in aboriginal society <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> direct influence those issues have on<br />
native women (NWAC Newsletter, 1, 8, 1983:2).<br />
Secondly, in fulfilling <strong>the</strong>ir caring roles, Indian women integrate <strong>the</strong>ir care for<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves with care for <strong>the</strong>ir families <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir communities, <strong>and</strong> this<br />
automatically motivates women to political participation <strong>and</strong> action. For<br />
example, women’s political struggle to acquire clear water <strong>and</strong> sewer systems<br />
on today’s reserves is motivated by <strong>the</strong>ir responsibility to care. This entails that<br />
women’s roles <strong>and</strong> responsibilities cannot be met unless women have<br />
decision-making rights (cf. Fiske 1990-1, 1992). NWAC claimed that, on <strong>the</strong><br />
basis of women’s caring responsibilities, <strong>the</strong>y had to politically take care also.<br />
This way, <strong>the</strong> Association was able to legitimize itself among its own<br />
constituency, o<strong>the</strong>r (male-dominated) national aboriginal organizations, <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian government. This was necessary for NWAC to become involved<br />
<strong>and</strong> to play a role in <strong>the</strong> constitutional process on aboriginal matters in spite of<br />
lacking a formal participant position.<br />
Mainstreaming Indian Women’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al Challenge for Change<br />
Particularly with respect to NWAC’s lack of a formal position it was necessary<br />
to formulate political aspirations within <strong>the</strong> frame of reference of both <strong>the</strong><br />
218
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Women’s<br />
Rights: Conflicts <strong>and</strong> Dilemmas<br />
government <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> AFN (cf. Adamson et al. 1988:180-190). NWAC had to<br />
reckon with non-aboriginal perceptions of aboriginal peoples, as well as <strong>the</strong><br />
views of women held by society at large <strong>and</strong> those held by aboriginal men.<br />
Hence, because of Indian women’s double identity—gender <strong>and</strong><br />
culture—<strong>the</strong>y were in triple jeopardy. 9 If NWAC had disengaged from <strong>the</strong><br />
aboriginal movement it would have seriously risked compromising its goals<br />
within <strong>the</strong> aboriginal constitutional context. 10 It is not a matter of “buying-off”<br />
but ra<strong>the</strong>r an Indian women’s challenge to re-define femaleness <strong>and</strong> to<br />
engender aboriginal identity. In view of <strong>the</strong> above, <strong>the</strong> only avenue open for<br />
NWAC was to formulate its aspirations within <strong>the</strong> context of aboriginal selfgovernment.<br />
Dissociation from <strong>the</strong> Women’s Movement<br />
<strong>The</strong>re can be no doubt that aboriginal women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir way of politically<br />
organizing has been considerably influenced by <strong>the</strong> Canadian women’s<br />
movement since <strong>the</strong> late 1960s <strong>and</strong> early 1970s. But Indian women in<br />
particular faced <strong>the</strong> challenge of balancing loyalty to <strong>the</strong> aboriginal peoples’<br />
self-government aspirations <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir feminist aspirations. In order for NWAC<br />
to integrate women’s rights into aboriginal rights, it had to choose a strategy of<br />
dissociation from <strong>the</strong> Canadian women’s movement, which was largely<br />
portrayed as white, middle-class dominated. Discussions on Indian women’s<br />
issues—through <strong>the</strong> underlying traditional mo<strong>the</strong>rhood notion—were<br />
replaced from <strong>the</strong> context of human, individual <strong>and</strong> white feminist rights to<br />
that of aboriginal, collective rights. <strong>The</strong> connection between sexual equality<br />
<strong>and</strong> aboriginal rights was necessary to establish better terms with <strong>the</strong><br />
Assembly of First Nations <strong>and</strong> to gain support (Krosenbrink 1991:128-41; cf.<br />
NWAC 1980). However, it appears that after 1990 <strong>the</strong> old controversy<br />
between NWAC <strong>and</strong> AFN revived, <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s Association<br />
(particularly <strong>the</strong> national office) re-established relations with <strong>the</strong> National<br />
Action Committee of Women, an umbrella organization of Canadian women’s<br />
groups (<strong>The</strong> Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, October 9/92).<br />
<strong>The</strong> strategic use of <strong>the</strong> ideological concept of Indian traditional mo<strong>the</strong>rhood<br />
toge<strong>the</strong>r with Indian women’s actions <strong>and</strong> lobbying was not without positive<br />
results. NWAC was able to play a role in <strong>the</strong> negotiations on aboriginal<br />
constitutional rights. NWAC presented position papers to <strong>the</strong> heads of <strong>the</strong><br />
federal <strong>and</strong> provincial governments as well as to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r national aboriginal<br />
organizations. It vigorously lobbied through its National Committee on<br />
Aboriginal Rights. After all, it took part in <strong>the</strong> First Ministers’ Conferences on<br />
Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Matters as delegates from several provincial<br />
governments (e.g. Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec, <strong>and</strong> Saskatchewan), as<br />
delegates of <strong>the</strong> Native Council of Canada (1983 <strong>and</strong> 1984), <strong>and</strong> later of <strong>the</strong><br />
AFN (1985 <strong>and</strong> 1987). <strong>The</strong> Association also participated in parliamentary<br />
commissions on Indian self-government <strong>and</strong> on <strong>the</strong> Indian Act (Krosenbrink<br />
1991:146-79).<br />
When <strong>the</strong> constitutional process on aboriginal matters officially ended in<br />
March, 1987, NWAC could count its gains. Sexual equality was put on <strong>the</strong><br />
aboriginal constitutional agenda by <strong>the</strong> government. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Accord on Aboriginal Rights of 1983, which became <strong>the</strong> 1984 <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
Amendment Proclamation, entailed a sexual equality guarantee in <strong>the</strong><br />
aboriginal rights provision of Section 35. However, since <strong>the</strong> matter of<br />
aboriginal rights (self-government) was not resolved during <strong>the</strong> constitutional<br />
process—<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord that included recognition of <strong>the</strong> right<br />
219
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
to aboriginal self-government was defeated by referendum in 1992—<strong>the</strong><br />
provision has only symbolic value. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, AFN <strong>and</strong> NWAC joined in<br />
May 1984 to uphold an Indian Act amendment whose details <strong>the</strong>y objected to<br />
(cf. AFN/NWAC Press Statement on Bill C-47, 22-6-84). <strong>La</strong>stly, in 1985 <strong>the</strong><br />
Indian Act was amended by Bill C-31. <strong>The</strong> sex-discriminatory regulations in<br />
<strong>the</strong> old Act were repealed <strong>and</strong> reinstatement was provided to persons who had<br />
lost or who had never had <strong>the</strong>se rights as a result. <strong>The</strong> new Indian Act also<br />
provided for Indian b<strong>and</strong> control of membership, meaning that legal status <strong>and</strong><br />
b<strong>and</strong> membership in future are disconnected <strong>and</strong> that b<strong>and</strong>s may decide to<br />
include certain non-status Indians in, <strong>and</strong> to exclude certain status Indians,<br />
from <strong>the</strong>ir membership (cf. Indian Act 1985; Krosenbrink 1991:170-94).<br />
Since self-government has not been constitutionally defined <strong>and</strong> entrenched as<br />
yet, <strong>the</strong> Indian Act, with its legal status stipulations, is still <strong>the</strong> most important<br />
regulator of Indian people’s lives. <strong>The</strong> new Indian Act, Bill C-31, is far too<br />
complex to discuss in this article.<br />
Where Do Indian Women Go From Here?<br />
Given NWAC’s marginal position, <strong>and</strong> in view of Indian women’s conflicts<br />
<strong>and</strong> dilemmas in balancing aboriginal <strong>and</strong> feminist aspirations, we can<br />
conclude that NWAC was relatively successful in reaching its goals with<br />
respect to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> by 1987. NWAC’s strategic use of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Indian traditional mo<strong>the</strong>rhood concept largely attributed to its success.<br />
However, as Mancini Billson argues:<br />
Although <strong>the</strong> 1982 Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms<br />
entrenches equality for women <strong>and</strong> minorities, <strong>the</strong> eradication of<br />
racism, ethnocentrism <strong>and</strong> sexism will be harder to guarantee<br />
(1991:64).<br />
A comprehensive assessment of <strong>the</strong> impact of Bill C-31, which was released<br />
by Indian Affairs in 1990 (in conjunction with particularly NWAC <strong>and</strong> AFN),<br />
clearly illustrates that Indian women still suffer from sexual discrimination<br />
(INAC 1990). <strong>The</strong> Indian Act may have done away with some aspects of<br />
sexual discrimination but has given room to o<strong>the</strong>rs. Not all persons who had<br />
lost or never gained Indian status are eligible for reinstatement. Children of<br />
reinstated Indian women do not have <strong>the</strong> same right to transmit status <strong>and</strong> b<strong>and</strong><br />
membership as children of <strong>the</strong>ir mo<strong>the</strong>r’s bro<strong>the</strong>r. Not only do <strong>the</strong> new rules<br />
appear to perpetuate (residual) sexual discrimination, but Indian b<strong>and</strong>s<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves appear to put up barriers to prevent directly or indirectly reinstated<br />
women from exercising <strong>the</strong>ir (automatic) b<strong>and</strong> membership rights. Indian<br />
women who have <strong>the</strong>ir birth rights restored are excluded from <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
communities’ political processes <strong>and</strong> are hampered from residing on <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
homel<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> from voting in b<strong>and</strong> elections. Thus, Indian women still face<br />
legal <strong>and</strong> practical problems in reconciling <strong>the</strong>ir culture <strong>and</strong> gender (cf.<br />
Holmes 1987; Duclos 1990).<br />
To some b<strong>and</strong>s, practical <strong>and</strong> economical reasons for denying reinstated<br />
women <strong>the</strong> exercise of <strong>the</strong>ir Indian rights, such as access to <strong>the</strong>ir reserves, may<br />
have a greater weight than any argument leading in <strong>the</strong> direction of sexual<br />
discrimination. However, Indian women who have never lost <strong>the</strong>ir status <strong>and</strong><br />
who have lived on a reserve all <strong>the</strong>ir lives appear to suffer from sexual<br />
discrimination also (cf. Silman 1987). Many b<strong>and</strong>s oppose <strong>the</strong> old as well as<br />
<strong>the</strong> new Indian Act as <strong>the</strong> government’s tool for setting <strong>the</strong> parameters of<br />
220
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Women’s<br />
Rights: Conflicts <strong>and</strong> Dilemmas<br />
Indian self-government. To <strong>the</strong>se b<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> issue of sexual discrimination or<br />
sexual equality is not relevant (cf. Duclos 1990). However, to Indian women,<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir struggle for sexual equality remains inextricably tied to Indian selfgovernment.<br />
So, where do Indian women go from here? Firstly, I argue that it is necessary<br />
that both <strong>the</strong> government <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Assembly of First Nations recognize <strong>the</strong><br />
Native Women’s Association as a separate organization with a legitimate<br />
m<strong>and</strong>ate <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong>y include it in all national political discussions on an equal<br />
footing. This is particularly important in view of future self-government<br />
negotiations during <strong>the</strong> “Charlottetown aftermath.” Secondly, <strong>the</strong><br />
government, which was responsible for Indian women’s problems in <strong>the</strong> first<br />
place, has to provide very explicit <strong>and</strong> unambiguous guarantees of Indian<br />
women’s equality rights. This means also that residual sexual discrimination<br />
in <strong>the</strong> new Indian Act should be eliminated. Thirdly, Indian women in <strong>the</strong><br />
communities have to take action to alter sex-discriminatory attitudes. <strong>La</strong>stly,<br />
<strong>the</strong> matter of Indian self-government should be constitutionally resolved in<br />
due course. Only when men’s <strong>and</strong> women’s special legal status <strong>and</strong> rights are<br />
explicitly <strong>and</strong> constitutionally recognized <strong>and</strong> affirmed may <strong>the</strong> Indian Act’s<br />
status regulations become redundant <strong>and</strong> Indian men <strong>and</strong> women better able to<br />
work toge<strong>the</strong>r towards a future as truly self-governing First Nations.<br />
Conclusion<br />
<strong>The</strong> Native Women’s Association of Canada can be viewed as manifestation<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Canadian Indian women’s movement. It is unique in its claim that<br />
equality between <strong>the</strong> sexes can only be established through <strong>the</strong> restoration of<br />
cultural traditions, among which gender equality. By strategically using <strong>the</strong><br />
ideological concept of traditional mo<strong>the</strong>rhood <strong>the</strong> Association was able to<br />
resolve conflicts <strong>and</strong> dilemmas in connecting aboriginal <strong>and</strong> equality rights.<br />
<strong>The</strong> author argues that explicit sexual equality guarantees within <strong>the</strong> frame of<br />
constitutionally entrenched Indian self-government are a prerequisite in order<br />
for women to have <strong>the</strong>ir rights as First Nations’ citizens protected.<br />
Notes<br />
1. I am grateful for <strong>the</strong> financial support of <strong>The</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rl<strong>and</strong>s Organization for Scientific<br />
Research (NWO) during <strong>the</strong> preparation of this article.<br />
2. Informants’ data for <strong>the</strong> article were ga<strong>the</strong>red during fieldwork in Canada in 1983, 1985,<br />
1986, 1987 <strong>and</strong> 1990. For a more extensive study on Canadian Indian women, see<br />
Krosenbrink (1991).<br />
3. <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court decided in a five to four vote against <strong>La</strong>vell. <strong>The</strong> Canadian Bill of Rights<br />
(1960) was not considered effective to overrule <strong>the</strong> Indian Act, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that Indian<br />
women were treated differently was not considered relevant to <strong>the</strong> case as brought forward<br />
(Eberts 1985:61; Jamieson 1978:85-86; Kerr 1975:23).<br />
4. This argument holds specifically for <strong>the</strong> period 1982-1987. During <strong>the</strong> debates on <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown agreement in <strong>the</strong> summer of 1992, it appeared that NWAC shifted its focus to<br />
Section 15. <strong>The</strong> Association’s President argued that basic human rights as recognized in<br />
international law <strong>and</strong> enforceable under <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> must be guaranteed to every individual<br />
including First Nations persons (Govt. of Canada 1992:32).<br />
5. Ethnic (immigrant) groups in Canada cannot claim collective rights, o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> quasicollective<br />
rights spelled out in section 15 of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong> aboriginal peoples’ rejection of<br />
being classified as ethnic group st<strong>and</strong>s in close relationship to section 25 of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
6. <strong>The</strong> U.N. decision in 1981 on <strong>the</strong> Lovelace case particularly referred to <strong>the</strong> self- determining<br />
rights of minority groups in relation to membership (cf. article 27 of <strong>the</strong> International<br />
Covenant on Civil <strong>and</strong> Political Rights, 1976).<br />
221
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
7. In August 1992, NWAC tried through <strong>the</strong> Federal Court of Appeal to obtain <strong>the</strong> right to a<br />
formal seat at <strong>the</strong> constitutional bargaining table. Although <strong>the</strong> Association won, <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
government continued negotiations with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r four national aboriginal organizations <strong>and</strong><br />
refused direct participation to <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s Association. On October 13, 1992,<br />
NWAC tried to block <strong>the</strong> national referendum in Federal Court because <strong>the</strong> aboriginal selfgovernment<br />
provision of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord was not explicitly subordinated to <strong>the</strong><br />
equality provision in <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> (<strong>The</strong> Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, Oct. 13/92:A8).<br />
8. Primary <strong>and</strong> secondary source material on <strong>the</strong> (re)evaluation of Indian women’s traditional<br />
roles <strong>and</strong> positions have grown since <strong>the</strong> second women’s movement of <strong>the</strong> late 1960s <strong>and</strong><br />
early 1970s (cf. e.g. Brant 1988; Green 1983; Gunn Allen 1989; Jamieson 1982;<br />
Krosenbrink 1984:5-27, 1991:39-48).<br />
9. According to Hall: “Compelling arguments can be made in support of <strong>the</strong> assertion that <strong>the</strong><br />
oppression of women in Aboriginal communities represents a distilled variety of <strong>the</strong> basis<br />
present more generally throughout Canadian society” (1992:42).<br />
10. <strong>The</strong> National Committee on Indian Rights for Indian Women (IRIW) favoured a strategy of<br />
disengagement in <strong>the</strong> 1970s. <strong>The</strong> consequence was that <strong>the</strong>y continued <strong>the</strong>ir existence as<br />
merely an Alberta (non-status) Indian women’s group after 1981 (Krosenbrink 1991:99).<br />
Bibliography<br />
Adamson, N. et al. 1988. Feminist Organizing for Change: <strong>The</strong> Contemporary Women’s<br />
Movement in Canada. Toronto: Oxford Univ. Press.<br />
AFN. 1984. “AFN Statement on Equality during FMC.” In: Unity 1(1):10-1.<br />
AFN/NWAC Press Statement. 1984. Statement on Bill C-47, June 22, 1984.<br />
Aggamaway Pierre, M. 1983. “Native Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> State.” In: Turner, J. & L. Emery, eds.<br />
Perspectives on Women in <strong>the</strong> 1980s, pp. 66-73. Winnipeg: <strong>The</strong> Univ. of Manitoba Press.<br />
Brant, B., ed. 1988. A Ga<strong>the</strong>ring of Spirit: A Collection by North American Indian Women.<br />
Ithaca/New York: Firebr<strong>and</strong> Books.<br />
Duclos, N. 1990. “Lessons of Difference: Feminist <strong>The</strong>ory on Cultural Diversity.” In: Buffalo <strong>La</strong>w<br />
Review 38(2):325-81.<br />
Eberts, M. 1985. “<strong>The</strong> Use of Litigation under <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms as a<br />
Strategy for Achieving Change.” In: Nevitte, N. & A. Kornberg, eds. Minorities <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian State, pp. 53-70. Oakville: Mosaic Press.<br />
Fiske, J. 1990-1. “Native Women in Reserve Politics: Strategies <strong>and</strong> Struggles.” In: Journal of<br />
Legal Pluralism <strong>and</strong> Unofficial <strong>La</strong>w 30(1):121-37.<br />
–––––1992. Child of <strong>the</strong> State Mo<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> Nation: Aboriginal Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ideology of<br />
Mo<strong>the</strong>rhood. Paper presented to <strong>the</strong> Joint Meetings of <strong>the</strong> Atlantic Canada Studies <strong>and</strong> B.C.<br />
Studies Associations, May 21-4, 1992.<br />
Gibson, D. 1985. “Protection of Minority Rights under <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong><br />
Freedoms: Can Politicians <strong>and</strong> Judges Sing Harmony?” In: Nevitte, N. & A. Kornberg, eds.<br />
Minorities <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian State, pp. 31-52. Oakville: Mosaic Press.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail. 1992. Support for Deal Growing Among Native Women, October 9, 1992.<br />
–––––1992. Native Women Aim to Block National Referendum in Court: Women’s Association<br />
Says Federal Government Violated Rights by Failing to Give <strong>The</strong>m Voice at <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Talks, October 13, 1992:A8.<br />
Government of Canada. 1981. <strong>The</strong> Canadian <strong>Constitution</strong>, 1981: A Resolution Adopted by <strong>the</strong><br />
Parliament of Canada, December, 1981. Ottawa: Minister of Supply <strong>and</strong> Services Canada.<br />
–––––1982. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> You. Ottawa: Minister of Supply <strong>and</strong> Services Canada.<br />
–––––1992. First Peoples <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>: Conference Report, Ottawa, March 13-5, 1992.<br />
Ottawa: Privy Council Office.<br />
Green, R. 1983. Native American Women: A Contextual Bibliography. Bloomington: Indiana<br />
Univ. Press.<br />
Gunn Allen, P., ed. 1989. Spider Woman’s Gr<strong>and</strong>daughters: Traditional Tales <strong>and</strong> Contemporary<br />
Writing by Native American Women. Boston: Beacon Press.<br />
–––––1992. <strong>The</strong> Voice of <strong>the</strong> Turtle: A Century of American Indian Fiction. Paper presented at <strong>the</strong><br />
7th Bertrant Russell Lecture of <strong>the</strong> Working Group Indigenous Peoples in <strong>The</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rl<strong>and</strong>s,<br />
Amsterdam, October 11, 1992.<br />
Hall, T. 1992. “<strong>The</strong>oretical Discourse in Native Studies.” In: ACS Newsletter 14(1):40-3.<br />
Holmes, J. 1987. Bill C-31, Equality or Disparity? <strong>The</strong> Effects of <strong>the</strong> New Indian Act on Native<br />
Women. Ottawa: CACSW.<br />
House of Commons St<strong>and</strong>ing Committee on Indian Affairs <strong>and</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Development. 1976.<br />
Minutes of Proceedings <strong>and</strong> Evidence, issue # 53. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Canada.<br />
INAC (Indian <strong>and</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Affairs Canada). 1990. Impacts of <strong>the</strong> 1985 Amendments to <strong>the</strong> Indian<br />
Act (Bill C-31): Summary Report. Ottawa: Minister of Supply <strong>and</strong> Services Canada.<br />
222
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Women’s<br />
Rights: Conflicts <strong>and</strong> Dilemmas<br />
Indian Act: An Act Respecting Indians, Chapter I-6. 1970. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Canada.<br />
–––––1985. Ottawa: Minister of Supply <strong>and</strong> Services Canada.<br />
IRIW (Indian Rights for Indian Women). 1979. A Study on <strong>the</strong> Emotional Impact of Arbitrary<br />
Enfranchisement on Native Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir Families in Canada. Edmonton: IRIW.<br />
–––––1980. Position Review. Edmonton: IRIW (not published).<br />
Jamieson, K. 1978. Indian Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>La</strong>w in Canada: A Citizens Minus. Ottawa: Minister of<br />
Supply <strong>and</strong> Services Canada.<br />
–––––1979 “Multiple Jeopardy: <strong>The</strong> Evolution of a Native Women’s Movement.” In: Atlantis<br />
4(2):157-78.<br />
–––––1982. Native Women in Canada: A Selected Bibliography. Ottawa: Minister of Supply <strong>and</strong><br />
Services Canada.<br />
Kerr, S. 1975. Women’s Rights <strong>and</strong> Two National Native Organizations: <strong>The</strong> Native Council of<br />
Canada <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> National Indian Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood. Ottawa: Carleton University (not published).<br />
Krosenbrink-Gelissen, L. 1984. No Indian Women No Indian Nation: Canadian Native Women in<br />
Search of <strong>The</strong>ir Identity. Nijmegen Univ. (not published).<br />
–––––1986.“Indiaanse-, Inuit en Metis organisaties in Canada en hun constitutionele fondsen.” In:<br />
De Kiva 23(1):15-6; 23(2):22-3.<br />
–––––1991. Sexual Equality as an Aboriginal Right: <strong>The</strong> Native Women’s Association of Canada<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Process on Aboriginal Matters, 1982-1987. Saarbrucken/Fort<br />
<strong>La</strong>uderdale: Verlag Breitenbach Publishers.<br />
Mahoney, K. 1992. “<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al <strong>La</strong>w of Equality in Canada.” In: Maine <strong>La</strong>w Review<br />
44(2):229-59.<br />
Mancini Billson, J. 1991. “Interlocking Identities: Gender Ethnicity <strong>and</strong> Power in <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
Context.” In: International Journal of Canadian Studies 3:49-67<br />
NWAC (Native Women’s Association of Canada). 1980. Declaration of Principles <strong>and</strong> Beliefs.<br />
Ottawa: NWAC.<br />
–––––1981. “Statement by NWAC on Native Women’s Rights.” In: Doerr, A. & M. Carrier, eds.<br />
Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> in Canada, pp. 64-73. Ottawa: CACSW.<br />
–––––1982. “Millbrook ends Discrimination.” In: NWAC Newsletter 1(3):18.<br />
–––––1982. “Native Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>.” In: NWAC Newsletter 1(5):7-11.<br />
–––––1983. “Native Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Issues.” In: NWAC Newsletter 1(8):2.<br />
–––––1983. “Equality Clause Not Enough Says NWAC President.” In: NWAC Newsletter 1(8):3.<br />
–––––1984. Contemporary Issues: Information Kit. Ottawa: NWAC.<br />
Richstone, J. 1983. Native Women, <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Equality Rights in Canada.<br />
Discussion paper prepared for NWAC. Ottawa: NWAC (not published).<br />
Secretary of State. 1985. Guide to Native Citizens’ Programs. Ottawa: Minister of Supply <strong>and</strong><br />
Services Canada.<br />
Silman, J. 1987. Enough is Enough: Aboriginal Women Speak Out. Toronto: <strong>The</strong> Women’s Press.<br />
Tooker, E. 1990 (1984). “Women in Iroquois Society.” In: Spittal, W., ed. Iroquois Women: An<br />
Anthology (Iroquois Reprints), pp. 199-216. Oshweken: Iroqrafts.<br />
223
Radha Jhappan<br />
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Discourse from 1982 to <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord *<br />
Abstract<br />
<strong>The</strong> 1992 Charlottetown Accord proposed to enshrine Canadian Aboriginal<br />
peoples’ inherent right to self-government. Had it been approved in <strong>the</strong><br />
national referendum of October 1992, <strong>the</strong> Accord would have created a third<br />
order of government within <strong>the</strong> federation. Aboriginal governments would<br />
have enjoyed great latitude in exercising a variety of powers currently<br />
available only to <strong>the</strong> provincial <strong>and</strong> federal governments. As governments <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> majority of citizens have previously resisted Aboriginal claims for a<br />
constitutional right to self-government, <strong>the</strong> Accord’s provisions indicated a<br />
profound shift in <strong>the</strong> Canadian mind-set regarding Aboriginal entitlements.<br />
Through analysis of position papers of <strong>the</strong> national Aboriginal organizations<br />
<strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r parties to <strong>the</strong> reform process, this paper surveys <strong>the</strong> central dialogue<br />
surrounding <strong>the</strong> main constitutional developments in Aboriginal affairs over<br />
<strong>the</strong> past decade. <strong>The</strong>re is evidence of considerable convergence on selfgovernment<br />
<strong>and</strong> its meaning, especially as politicians <strong>and</strong> citizens appear to<br />
have substantially accepted several of <strong>the</strong> core elements of Aboriginal<br />
discourse; inherency, <strong>the</strong> three nations concept <strong>and</strong> collective rights.<br />
However, questions regarding <strong>the</strong> application of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> gender<br />
equality rights show a continuing dissonance between individual <strong>and</strong><br />
collective rights as applied to Aboriginal governments.<br />
Résumé<br />
L’Accord de Charlottetown de 1992 proposait la constitutionnalisation du<br />
droit inhérent des peuples autochtones à l’autonomie. Si le référendum<br />
d’octobre de la même année avait entériné l’Accord, on aurait alors assisté à<br />
la création d’un troisième ordre de gouvernement au sein de la fédération. Les<br />
gouvernements autochtones auraient pu exercer un large éventail de pouvoirs<br />
qui n’appartiennent aujourd’hui qu’aux autorités fédérales et provinciales.<br />
Comme, jusqu’alors, les gouvernements et la majorité de la population<br />
s’étaient opposés à la reconnaissance officielle du droit à l’autonomie des<br />
peuples autochtones, les dispositions à cet égard de l’Accord de<br />
Charlottetown indiquaient un changement radical des mentalités chez les<br />
Canadiens. En procédant à l’analyse des exposés de vues présentés par les<br />
organismes autochtones et d’autres participants au processus de réforme, le<br />
présent article scrute le dialogue principal qui, depuis une décennie, a mené<br />
aux développements constitutionnels majeurs dans le dossier autochtone. Une<br />
nette convergence des opinions sur l’autonomie des peuples autochtones s’est<br />
réalisée au fur et à mesure que les hommes politiques et les citoyens ont<br />
accepté les éléments clés du discours autochtone : les droits inhérents; le<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
concept des trois nations; et les droits collectifs. Des désaccords persistent<br />
toutefois au sujet des droits collectifs et des droits individuels quant au respect<br />
par les gouvernments autochtones de la disposition de la <strong>Charte</strong> en matière<br />
d’égalité des sexes.<br />
In October 1992, <strong>the</strong> five hundredth anniversary of <strong>the</strong> arrival of Columbus in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Americas, <strong>the</strong> citizens of Canada voted on a constitutional reform package<br />
which could have begun <strong>the</strong> restoration of that which <strong>the</strong> European invasion<br />
was to suppress: <strong>the</strong> right of <strong>the</strong> indigenous peoples to govern <strong>the</strong>mselves. If<br />
passed, <strong>the</strong> self-government provisions would have put Canada’s Aboriginal<br />
peoples in <strong>the</strong> forefront of <strong>the</strong> international movement of indigenous peoples<br />
dedicated to reclaiming <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> socio-economic, cultural <strong>and</strong><br />
political rights usurped over five centuries of European settlement. In <strong>the</strong> end,<br />
however, Canadian voters rejected <strong>the</strong> package, which included a wide range<br />
of proposals apart from Aboriginal self-government. Indeed, although all but<br />
one of <strong>the</strong> Inuit communities of <strong>the</strong> North voted overwhelmingly in favour of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Accord, 62% of <strong>the</strong> on-reserve status Indian population rejected it. 1 Yet<br />
despite <strong>the</strong> Accord’s ultimate defeat, what is exceptional is that constitutional<br />
entrenchment of such a far-reaching bundle of rights was contemplated at all.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re has undoubtedly been a major contextual shift in Aboriginal politics in<br />
recent years. Just two decades ago, <strong>the</strong> federal government’s proposal to<br />
abolish <strong>the</strong> Indian Act met with <strong>the</strong> concerted <strong>and</strong> ultimately successful<br />
resistance of First Nations 2 across <strong>the</strong> country, who feared that <strong>the</strong>y would be<br />
cut adrift from <strong>the</strong> federal government’s fiduciary responsibilities <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
admittedly limited benefits of <strong>the</strong> Act. 3 Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, although Aboriginal<br />
peoples made an historic break-through in winning <strong>the</strong> entrenchment of<br />
Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> treaty rights in <strong>the</strong> 1982 <strong>Constitution</strong> Act (discussed below),<br />
<strong>the</strong>y were unable to secure an amendment on <strong>the</strong> right to self-government in<br />
<strong>the</strong> four First Ministers Conferences on Aboriginal Matters held between 1983<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1987. This failure was principally due to <strong>the</strong> provinces’ refusal to entrench<br />
a right, <strong>the</strong> scope <strong>and</strong> nature of which <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal organizations involved<br />
were reluctant to limit via definition. As Gibbins has argued, in <strong>the</strong> political<br />
arena, politicians could be persuaded to deal with “domain-specific” issues<br />
which were both demonstrable <strong>and</strong> amenable to remedy (issues such as<br />
unemployment, housing shortages, inadequate education <strong>and</strong> infant mortality,<br />
for example). However, while <strong>the</strong>y were willing to contemplate Aboriginal<br />
autonomy in some areas of jurisdiction on an incremental basis, when issues of<br />
constitutional principle <strong>and</strong> national symbolism arose, “constitutional<br />
recognition of Indian sovereignty was a pill upon which <strong>the</strong> political system<br />
gagged.” 4<br />
In view of <strong>the</strong>se problems, <strong>the</strong> recent constitutional negotiations <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
proposed constitutional amendments (outlined below) have revealed a seachange<br />
in <strong>the</strong> discourse surrounding Aboriginal peoples’ constitutional<br />
entitlements. <strong>The</strong> metamorphosis of this discourse is perceptible, not primarily<br />
among Aboriginal peoples, who have steadfastly held a core set of concepts<br />
<strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>s. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, this change is evident among political decision-makers<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> public, where support for Aboriginal peoples’ political aspirations is at<br />
an all-time high. 5<br />
<strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Agreement was reached after a long process of public<br />
discussions <strong>and</strong> hearings, sparked by <strong>the</strong> government of Canada’s<br />
constitutional reform proposals of September, 1991, entitled Shaping<br />
226
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
Canada’s Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r. 6 <strong>The</strong> proposals were followed by a series of crosscountry<br />
hearings by a Special Joint Committee of <strong>the</strong> House of Commons <strong>and</strong><br />
Senate (<strong>the</strong> Beaudoin-Dobbie Committee), which issued its recommendations<br />
in February 1992. 7 In addition, <strong>the</strong> federal government sponsored a series of<br />
six constitutional conferences which included a sprinkling of “ordinary<br />
citizens” along with representatives of various interest groups, academics,<br />
politicians <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r “experts.” Finally, <strong>the</strong> federal government provided<br />
funding for four of <strong>the</strong> major national Aboriginal organizations—<strong>the</strong><br />
Assembly of First Nations (AFN), <strong>the</strong> Native Council of Canada (NCC), <strong>the</strong><br />
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (ITC), <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Metis National Council (MNC)—to<br />
hold “parallel processes,” <strong>the</strong> better to ascertain <strong>the</strong> views of Aboriginal<br />
peoples on <strong>the</strong> issue of constitutional reform.<br />
Through an analysis of position papers <strong>and</strong> reports of <strong>the</strong> national Aboriginal<br />
organizations’ “parallel constitutional process” of 1991-92, this paper<br />
examines <strong>the</strong> permutations <strong>and</strong> continuities of Aboriginal constitutional<br />
discourse over <strong>the</strong> past decade, with a view to identifying its major <strong>the</strong>mes <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir expression. <strong>The</strong> nucleus of national Aboriginal organizations’<br />
constitutional goals has been self-government. However, while some of <strong>the</strong><br />
orbital concepts (such as <strong>the</strong> claims of an inherent right to self-government <strong>and</strong><br />
to distinct society status) have persisted over <strong>the</strong> period, <strong>the</strong>y have been<br />
articulated in different forms as <strong>the</strong> constellation of political forces at work in<br />
constitutional reform has shifted. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> early 1990s have witnessed<br />
<strong>the</strong> re-emergence of issues such as Aboriginal women’s rights, <strong>the</strong> “two<br />
founding nations” concept <strong>and</strong> equity of access. <strong>The</strong>se issues are ei<strong>the</strong>r relative<br />
newcomers to <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal constitutional agenda, or <strong>the</strong>y have assumed<br />
enhanced significance due to <strong>the</strong> florescence of previously marginalized<br />
voices within both Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> non-Aboriginal society.<br />
<strong>The</strong> first part of <strong>the</strong> paper outlines Aboriginal peoples’ constitutional position<br />
under <strong>the</strong> 1982 <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir potential constitutional rights under<br />
<strong>the</strong> proposed provisions of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord. <strong>The</strong> second part<br />
examines some of <strong>the</strong> factors which have induced change in Aboriginal<br />
constitutional discourse, both among Aboriginal peoples <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>and</strong><br />
among politicians <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> public. <strong>The</strong> third part of <strong>the</strong> paper tracks <strong>the</strong><br />
development of three sets of essential, interrelated <strong>the</strong>mes in <strong>the</strong> contemporary<br />
discourse. <strong>The</strong> first set of <strong>the</strong>mes links assertions of Aboriginal nationalism<br />
<strong>and</strong> sovereignty to <strong>the</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> for constitutional recognition of an inherent<br />
right to self-government. <strong>The</strong> second set of <strong>the</strong>mes relates to <strong>the</strong> intersection of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Aboriginal constitutional agenda with Quebec’s claims to distinct society<br />
status based on <strong>the</strong> “two founding nations” concept. <strong>The</strong> analysis shows that<br />
Aboriginal peoples have launched a successful assault on <strong>the</strong> latter conception<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Canadian compact. Finally, <strong>the</strong> third set of <strong>the</strong>mes is associated with <strong>the</strong><br />
attempt to reconcile individual with collective rights. <strong>The</strong> discussion focuses<br />
on <strong>the</strong> application of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s<br />
Association of Canada’s quest for protection of gender equality rights under<br />
Aboriginal governments. <strong>The</strong> tension between individual <strong>and</strong> collective rights<br />
is an especially important element of constitutional discourse; it involves<br />
unresolved issues both between Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> non-Aboriginal communities,<br />
<strong>and</strong> within Aboriginal communities <strong>the</strong>mselves.<br />
Spatial limitations inevitably require a focus on some <strong>the</strong>mes to <strong>the</strong> exclusion<br />
of o<strong>the</strong>rs. Aboriginal constitutional discourse is complex, <strong>and</strong> features many<br />
interrelated elements. Quite apart from spatial constraints, however, I have<br />
chosen not to analyze (o<strong>the</strong>r than tangentially) issues such as <strong>the</strong> treaties,<br />
227
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
equity of access, <strong>the</strong> Indian Act, <strong>the</strong> creation of new provinces <strong>and</strong> ethnic<br />
versus public government, on <strong>the</strong> grounds that <strong>the</strong>y are of special interest to<br />
specific sections of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal population, but not to everyone. Instead, I<br />
have selected what are, in my view, <strong>the</strong> major conceptual elements of<br />
Aboriginal peoples’ discourse in view of <strong>the</strong> new political relationship <strong>the</strong>y<br />
wish to craft with Canada, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir preferred status in <strong>the</strong> constitutional order.<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis shows that Aboriginal peoples have made some major conceptual<br />
breakthroughs in terms of constitutional talk in Canada, breakthroughs which<br />
appeared in <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown proposals. Finally, although <strong>the</strong> Accord failed<br />
(due to a range of factors mostly unrelated to <strong>the</strong> self-government provisions),<br />
it is possible that amendments on self-government may proceed separately.<br />
<strong>The</strong> paper thus concludes with an analysis of <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> discourse to<br />
date, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> prospects for future reforms in <strong>the</strong> area.<br />
Comparison of <strong>the</strong> 1982 <strong>Constitution</strong> Act <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown<br />
Accord<br />
Under <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, 1982, Aboriginal organizations had secured for<br />
<strong>the</strong> first time in Canadian history constitutional entrenchment of Aboriginal<br />
<strong>and</strong> treaty rights, though <strong>the</strong>ir precise meaning has not to date been fully<br />
fleshed out by <strong>the</strong> courts. As amended in 1983, <strong>the</strong> Act provided that:<br />
25. <strong>The</strong> guarantee in this <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of certain rights <strong>and</strong> freedoms shall not be<br />
construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any Aboriginal, treaty or o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
rights or freedoms that pertain to <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal peoples of Canada<br />
including<br />
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by <strong>the</strong> Royal<br />
Proclamation of October 7, 1763; <strong>and</strong><br />
(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of l<strong>and</strong> claims<br />
agreements or may be so acquired.<br />
35. (1) <strong>The</strong> existing Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> treaty rights of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal peoples of<br />
Canada are hereby recognized <strong>and</strong> affirmed.<br />
(2) In this Act, “Aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes <strong>the</strong> Indian,<br />
Inuit <strong>and</strong> Metis peoples of Canada.<br />
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes<br />
rights that now exist by way of l<strong>and</strong> claims agreements or may be<br />
so acquired.<br />
(4) Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing any o<strong>the</strong>r provision of this Act, <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal<br />
<strong>and</strong> treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed<br />
equally to male <strong>and</strong> female persons.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Accord of August 28, 1992, would have added<br />
substantially to <strong>the</strong>se provisions. Briefly, <strong>the</strong> Accord proposed to entrench<br />
Aboriginal peoples’ “inherent right of self-government within Canada,” 8<br />
<strong>the</strong>reby creating a new institutional framework under <strong>the</strong> rubric of federalism.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canada Clause, an interpretive clause governing <strong>the</strong> entire constitution,<br />
provided that “<strong>the</strong> Aboriginal peoples of Canada, being <strong>the</strong> first peoples to<br />
govern this l<strong>and</strong>, have <strong>the</strong> right to promote <strong>the</strong>ir languages, cultures <strong>and</strong><br />
traditions <strong>and</strong> to ensure <strong>the</strong> integrity of <strong>the</strong>ir societies, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir governments<br />
constitute one of three orders of government in Canada.” 9 A contextual<br />
statement in s.35(3) of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, 1982, would have specified that<br />
duly constituted legislative bodies of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal peoples had <strong>the</strong> right “(a)<br />
228
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
to safeguard <strong>and</strong> develop <strong>the</strong>ir languages, cultures, economies, identities,<br />
institutions <strong>and</strong> traditions, <strong>and</strong> (b) to develop, maintain <strong>and</strong> streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
relationship with <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong>s, waters <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> environment, so as to determine<br />
<strong>and</strong> control <strong>the</strong>ir development as peoples according to <strong>the</strong>ir own values <strong>and</strong><br />
priorities <strong>and</strong> to ensure <strong>the</strong> integrity of <strong>the</strong>ir societies.” 10<br />
<strong>The</strong>re were to be certain limitations on <strong>the</strong> inherent right. First, <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms was to apply to Aboriginal governments.<br />
However, <strong>the</strong> extent of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s application was rendered ambiguous by<br />
three provisions. Aboriginal governments were to have access to s. 33 (<strong>the</strong><br />
override clause) so that <strong>the</strong>y could exempt <strong>the</strong>ir laws from <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>’s<br />
fundamental freedoms, legal <strong>and</strong> equality rights. In addition, <strong>the</strong> existing s. 25<br />
exemption of Aboriginal, treaty or o<strong>the</strong>r rights from <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> was to be<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>ned by adding “(c) any rights or freedoms relating to <strong>the</strong> exercise or<br />
protection of <strong>the</strong>ir languages, cultures or traditions.” Finally, <strong>the</strong> democratic<br />
rights in s. 3 of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> were only to be applied to <strong>the</strong> federal <strong>and</strong> provincial<br />
legislatures, not to Aboriginal governments. Hence, it is not clear whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> would have applied to Aboriginal governments in any significant way,<br />
though this is discussed in more detail below.<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, a second limitation in s. 35.4(1) stated that federal <strong>and</strong><br />
provincial laws of general application would continue to apply until <strong>the</strong>y were<br />
displaced by laws passed by Aboriginal governments pursuant to negotiated<br />
authorities. Section 35(2) represented a third limit, providing that “no<br />
Aboriginal law or any o<strong>the</strong>r exercise of <strong>the</strong> inherent right of selfgovernment...may<br />
be inconsistent with federal or provincial laws that are<br />
essential to <strong>the</strong> preservation of peace, order <strong>and</strong> good government in Canada.”<br />
Fourth, no new l<strong>and</strong> rights were to be created, though nothing in <strong>the</strong> provisions<br />
were to derogate from existing l<strong>and</strong> rights. Fifth, s. 35.7 provided that <strong>the</strong><br />
rights of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal peoples of Canada were to be guaranteed equally to<br />
male <strong>and</strong> female persons. Finally, <strong>the</strong>re was to be a five-year delay on<br />
justiciability.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se limitations notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing, <strong>the</strong> Accord would have committed<br />
governments to negotiate in good faith <strong>the</strong> implementation of selfgovernment,<br />
including issues of jurisdiction, l<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> resources <strong>and</strong><br />
economic <strong>and</strong> fiscal arrangements. In addition, treaty rights were to be<br />
interpreted in “a just, broad <strong>and</strong> liberal manner taking into account <strong>the</strong>ir spirit<br />
<strong>and</strong> intent,” <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> government of Canada was to establish treaty processes to<br />
clarify, implement, or rectify <strong>the</strong> terms of <strong>the</strong> treaties. In fact, <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal<br />
components of <strong>the</strong> Accord were quite extensive. <strong>The</strong>y included: guaranteed<br />
Aboriginal representation in <strong>the</strong> Senate; an Aboriginal veto over constitutional<br />
amendments directly affecting Aboriginal peoples; <strong>and</strong> at least four biennial<br />
constitutional conferences on Aboriginal issues starting no later than 1996.<br />
Aboriginal representatives were to have items of <strong>the</strong>ir choice included on <strong>the</strong><br />
agendas. 11<br />
Compared with <strong>the</strong> ra<strong>the</strong>r sparse 1982 provisions, <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord<br />
would have signalled a massive change <strong>and</strong> considerable improvement in <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional position of Aboriginal peoples. It would have given Aboriginal<br />
governments unassailable constitutional status, while at <strong>the</strong> same time<br />
recognizing that <strong>the</strong> right to self-government preceded <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
constitution. At a philosophical level, several of its key provisions are<br />
indicative of <strong>the</strong> transformation of Aboriginal constitutional discourse in<br />
recent years <strong>and</strong> its acceptance by political elites. In particular, <strong>the</strong> concept of<br />
229
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
an inherent right to self-government enshrines collective rights <strong>and</strong> is an<br />
implicit recognition of Aboriginal nationhood <strong>and</strong> sovereignty. Meanwhile,<br />
<strong>the</strong> establishment of a third order of government in <strong>the</strong> Canadian federal<br />
system displaces <strong>the</strong> traditional “two nations” conception of <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
federal compact. <strong>The</strong>se elements of Aboriginal constitutional discourse are<br />
discussed below.<br />
Explaining <strong>the</strong> Discursive Shift<br />
As noted above, Aboriginal organizations were unable to secure constitutional<br />
recognition of <strong>the</strong> right to self-government during <strong>the</strong> 1980s. During that<br />
decade, public interest in <strong>and</strong> support for Aboriginal political aspirations was<br />
moderate, <strong>and</strong> had even declined somewhat since <strong>the</strong> 1970s. 12 Hence, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
was no particular public pressure for governments to act on <strong>the</strong>ir dem<strong>and</strong>s. In<br />
fact, in 1983 <strong>the</strong> Special Committee on Indian Self-Government (<strong>the</strong> Penner<br />
Committee) had released its report which recommended that Indian selfgovernment<br />
be constitutionally entrenched as an Aboriginal right, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
First Nation governments should form “a distinct order of government in<br />
Canada.” 13 Although hailed as a breakthrough by <strong>the</strong> AFN, <strong>the</strong> Report’s<br />
recommendations were never implemented. Moreover, less than a month after<br />
<strong>the</strong> failure of <strong>the</strong> 1987 F.M.C. on Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Matters, <strong>the</strong><br />
Governments of Canada <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> ten provinces signed <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord,<br />
a reform package which dealt wholly with Quebec’s agenda, <strong>and</strong> which made<br />
no attempt to address Aboriginal concerns.<br />
In view of <strong>the</strong>se events, <strong>the</strong> political process of 1991-92 <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> final package<br />
proposed by <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord almost suggested that we had been<br />
flipped into an alternate universe. What seemed impossible in <strong>the</strong> 1980s had<br />
suddenly become not only possible, but unavoidable. In <strong>the</strong> early 1990s,<br />
Aboriginal organizations were able to force <strong>the</strong>ir dem<strong>and</strong>s onto a<br />
constitutional agenda which was intended by <strong>the</strong> Mulroney government to<br />
address Quebec’s dem<strong>and</strong>s for recognition as a distinct society (among o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
things). Now it seems unlikely that any attempt at constitutional reform which<br />
fails to address Aboriginal dem<strong>and</strong>s for self-government could succeed in <strong>the</strong><br />
foreseeable future. What has caused this curious turn of events?<br />
One of <strong>the</strong> principal explanations for <strong>the</strong> inclusion of Aboriginal dem<strong>and</strong>s for<br />
self-government involves <strong>the</strong> role of Aboriginal peoples in <strong>the</strong> death of <strong>the</strong><br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord. When Elijah Harper, an Aboriginal member of <strong>the</strong><br />
Manitoba Legislature, used a procedural loophole to postpone debate in <strong>the</strong><br />
Legislature until it became impossible to ratify <strong>the</strong> Accord before <strong>the</strong> deadline,<br />
he was supported by Aboriginal organizations (<strong>and</strong> many citizens) across <strong>the</strong><br />
country. Indeed, Frances Abele has noted “<strong>the</strong> way in which Quebec <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
First Nations have stumbled over each o<strong>the</strong>r’s progress” in <strong>the</strong> process of<br />
constitutional reform:<br />
230<br />
In 1982, Aboriginal peoples registered a limited victory, in securing<br />
constitutional entrenchment of “existing Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> treaty<br />
rights” while Quebec, absent, was excluded; <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> urgency of<br />
resolving Quebec’s exclusion led to <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, which<br />
in turn contributed to <strong>the</strong> failure of <strong>the</strong> First Ministers’ Conferences<br />
on Aboriginal Matters; <strong>the</strong> apparent victory of reconciliation at<br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke was turned into a debacle by Aboriginal resistance to<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir exclusion from <strong>the</strong> process. 14
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
Shortly after <strong>the</strong> failure of Meech, a centuries-old dispute between <strong>the</strong><br />
Mohawks of Oka, Quebec <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> imperial <strong>and</strong> Canadian Crowns flared up<br />
afresh as <strong>the</strong> town of Oka proposed to exp<strong>and</strong> a golf course on <strong>the</strong>ir traditional<br />
burial grounds. After a peaceful blockade over several months had failed to<br />
dissuade <strong>the</strong> developers, Mohawk Warriors responded by engaging in an<br />
armed confrontation with <strong>the</strong> Quebec Provincial Police (<strong>and</strong> later <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian Armed Forces) at Oka <strong>and</strong> several reserves in Quebec in <strong>the</strong> late<br />
summer of 1990. <strong>The</strong> ninety-day st<strong>and</strong>-off sparked a spate of sympa<strong>the</strong>tic<br />
protests by Aboriginal communities <strong>and</strong> non-Aboriginal groups <strong>and</strong><br />
individuals across <strong>the</strong> country. Although many citizens reacted negatively to<br />
<strong>the</strong> tactic of armed protest, Oka demonstrated <strong>the</strong> profound frustration felt by<br />
many Aboriginal people. <strong>The</strong> siege provoked anxiety that more serious <strong>and</strong><br />
possibly more bloody confrontations might ensue if Aboriginal peoples’<br />
socio-economic conditions <strong>and</strong> political position were not remedied. This<br />
unusual demonstration of militancy drove <strong>the</strong> message home to politicians <strong>and</strong><br />
to <strong>the</strong> viewing public that Aboriginal people were serious, impatient with <strong>the</strong><br />
normal political process, <strong>and</strong> determined to resist encroachments on <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> political rights. Indeed, Meech <strong>and</strong> Oka are widely credited by Aboriginal<br />
leaders as <strong>the</strong> chief explanations of <strong>the</strong> discursive shift:<br />
However hideous <strong>the</strong> Oka confrontation was, it could hardly have<br />
done a better job of changing Canadian opinion, as white Canadians<br />
watched <strong>the</strong> QPP charge Mohawk barricades in order to preserve <strong>the</strong><br />
Mayor of Oka’s self-assumed right to exp<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> municipal golf<br />
course. <strong>The</strong> ugliness at <strong>the</strong> Mercier Bridge brought racism out into<br />
<strong>the</strong> open, to be confronted. <strong>The</strong> Donald Marshall case, <strong>the</strong><br />
investigation into <strong>the</strong> cover-up of Helen Betty Osborne’s murder,<br />
task forces on Aboriginal justice in various provinces—all of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
have opened white Canadians’ eyes as never before, to Native issues<br />
<strong>and</strong> concerns...And <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>re was Meech <strong>La</strong>ke. In <strong>the</strong> brangling <strong>and</strong><br />
hysteria of <strong>the</strong> last weeks of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke fiasco, Elijah Harper’s<br />
quiet dignity...deeply impressed many white Canadians. 15<br />
Whereas <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal role in <strong>the</strong> demise of <strong>the</strong> “Quebec Round” of<br />
constitutional reform <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> militancy of Oka signalled <strong>the</strong> growing political<br />
potency of Aboriginal peoples, renewed conceptions of collective rights<br />
following <strong>the</strong> 1982 <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights were empowered by a series of Supreme<br />
Court decisions in <strong>the</strong> 1980s. <strong>The</strong> Guerin, Sioui, Simon <strong>and</strong> Sparrow decisions<br />
acknowledged <strong>the</strong> survival of Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> treaty rights, <strong>and</strong> brea<strong>the</strong>d new<br />
life into Aboriginal claims that <strong>the</strong>ir “natural rights” never<strong>the</strong>less had <strong>the</strong> force<br />
of law in <strong>the</strong> Eurocanadian legal system. In particular, in <strong>the</strong> Sparrow decision,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Supreme Court found that regulation of a right (in this case a fishing right)<br />
could nei<strong>the</strong>r extinguish nor determine “<strong>the</strong> scope <strong>and</strong> content of an existing<br />
Aboriginal right.” 16 Moreover, in its first interpretation of s. 35 of <strong>the</strong> 1982<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> Act, <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court found that <strong>the</strong> section implies a fiduciary<br />
responsibility on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> federal government, suggesting “some<br />
restraint on <strong>the</strong> exercise of sovereign power.” 17 Section 35, <strong>the</strong> Court held, was<br />
to be given “a generous <strong>and</strong> liberal interpretation,” applied as it is to a sui<br />
generis category of rights. 18<br />
Certainly, <strong>the</strong>se far-reaching legal victories impressed upon politicians <strong>the</strong> fact<br />
that Aboriginal peoples’ claims to l<strong>and</strong>, treaty <strong>and</strong> unextinguished Aboriginal<br />
rights were much stronger in legal <strong>and</strong> constitutional terms than many had<br />
believed. Hence, taken toge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> enhanced legal recognition of Aboriginal<br />
231
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
rights, Aboriginal peoples’ role in <strong>the</strong> defeat of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> new wave of militancy <strong>and</strong> direct action inspired by <strong>the</strong> cataclysm of Oka<br />
account at least in part for <strong>the</strong> transfiguration of Aboriginal constitutional<br />
discourse <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> willingness of political elites to embrace it.<br />
Aboriginal Nationhood, Sovereignty <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Inherent Right to Self-<br />
Government<br />
Aboriginal nationalism has been developing in Canada since at least <strong>the</strong> 1970s,<br />
when <strong>the</strong> Red Power movement began to craft an ideology of opposition which<br />
rejected <strong>the</strong> dominant political ethos <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> place of Aboriginal people within<br />
it. As Chartr<strong>and</strong> observes, <strong>the</strong> recently mobilizing movement of Aboriginal<br />
peoples “is characterized by an emerging sense of nationalism which presents<br />
a number of challenges to traditional notions about <strong>the</strong> nation-state in<br />
Canada...[including]...<strong>the</strong> legitimacy of a constitutional order based upon a<br />
division of powers between <strong>the</strong> federal Parliament <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> provincial<br />
Legislatures.” 19<br />
Two of <strong>the</strong> core elements of Aboriginal political <strong>and</strong> constitutional discourse<br />
in recent years have been claims to nationhood <strong>and</strong> sovereignty, which have<br />
culminated in a dem<strong>and</strong> for <strong>the</strong> recognition of an inherent right to selfgovernment.<br />
<strong>The</strong> concepts of nationhood <strong>and</strong> sovereignty are not understood<br />
by Aboriginal peoples in quite <strong>the</strong> same way as <strong>the</strong>y are comprehended by non-<br />
Aboriginal people. “Nationhood” is not normally understood by Aboriginal<br />
people in Canada in <strong>the</strong> sense of “nation-state.” <strong>The</strong> latter would imply an<br />
international status whereby <strong>the</strong> nation would exercise complete sovereignty<br />
over a discrete territory, while enjoying <strong>the</strong> right to make foreign policy <strong>and</strong> to<br />
enter into treaties with o<strong>the</strong>r nations. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, Aboriginal nationhood is<br />
generally understood as describing a socio-cultural (usually tribal) group,<br />
sharing a common language, history, territory <strong>and</strong> identity.<br />
Yet Aboriginal nationalism is more than cultural nationalism: it has political<br />
implications, even if <strong>the</strong>se do not extend as far as a claim to full-fledged nationstatehood.<br />
As Boldt has suggested, nationalism can refer to a range of<br />
autonomous political conditions, <strong>and</strong> if full independence is one extreme on a<br />
continuum, Canada’s Aboriginal peoples are best characterized as<br />
“autonomists.” 20 Perhaps <strong>the</strong> most renowned assertion of nationhood <strong>and</strong><br />
sovereignty was <strong>the</strong> Dene Declaration of 1975, which read in part:<br />
We <strong>the</strong> Dene of <strong>the</strong> [Northwest Territories] insist on <strong>the</strong> right to be<br />
regarded by ourselves <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> world as a nation. Our struggle is for<br />
<strong>the</strong> recognition of <strong>the</strong> Dene Nation by <strong>the</strong> Government <strong>and</strong> people of<br />
Canada <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> peoples <strong>and</strong> governments of <strong>the</strong> world....<strong>The</strong> Dene<br />
find <strong>the</strong>mselves as part of a country. That country is Canada. But <strong>the</strong><br />
Government of Canada is not <strong>the</strong> government of <strong>the</strong> Dene. <strong>The</strong><br />
Government of <strong>the</strong> N.W.T. is not <strong>the</strong> government of <strong>the</strong> Dene. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
governments were not <strong>the</strong> choice of <strong>the</strong> Dene, <strong>the</strong>y were imposed on<br />
<strong>the</strong> Dene. Our plea to <strong>the</strong> world is to help us in our struggle to find a<br />
place in <strong>the</strong> world community where we can exercise our right to selfdetermination<br />
as a distinct people <strong>and</strong> as a nation. What we seek <strong>the</strong>n<br />
is independence <strong>and</strong> self-determination within <strong>the</strong> country of<br />
Canada. 21 (emphasis added)<br />
In <strong>the</strong> 1970s, various Aboriginal writers <strong>and</strong> organizations pointed out that<br />
before colonization, Aboriginal societies were sovereign. <strong>The</strong> British Crown,<br />
232
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
<strong>the</strong>y argued, recognized <strong>the</strong> pre-existing sovereignty of Indian nations in<br />
particular through <strong>the</strong> Royal Proclamation of 1763, 22 <strong>and</strong> through <strong>the</strong> treaties<br />
it authorized, which were conducted on a nation-to-nation basis. <strong>The</strong>y argued<br />
that <strong>the</strong>y never gave up <strong>the</strong>ir right to govern <strong>the</strong>mselves. <strong>The</strong> treaties may have<br />
limited sovereignty, but <strong>the</strong>y did not erase it:<br />
Prior to colonial settlement in North America, <strong>the</strong> Indian... people<br />
had uncontested dominion over <strong>the</strong>ir tribal territories <strong>and</strong> all <strong>the</strong><br />
people <strong>the</strong>rein. <strong>The</strong>y could govern, make laws, wage war, <strong>and</strong> had<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir own political, social, cultural, educational, economic, <strong>and</strong><br />
property systems. Each tribe had absolute control over <strong>the</strong> resources<br />
<strong>and</strong> products of <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong> tribes had political<br />
sovereignty. To Indian people, <strong>the</strong>ir title to tribal l<strong>and</strong>s was explicit in<br />
this political sovereignty. <strong>The</strong> actions of <strong>the</strong> colonial powers in<br />
entering into treaties with Indian peoples were an acknowledgement<br />
of sovereignty <strong>and</strong> a recognition of Indian rights to <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>. 23<br />
In contemporary discourse, however, Aboriginal nationalism <strong>and</strong> assertions of<br />
sovereignty do not require a return to <strong>the</strong> absolute autonomy of <strong>the</strong> pre-contact<br />
period. Chartr<strong>and</strong> notes that in general, “Aboriginal peoples...have not been<br />
anxious to assert that <strong>the</strong>ir right of self-determination requires that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
separate politically <strong>and</strong> economically from Canada.” 24 John Moss notes that in<br />
<strong>the</strong> early 1980s, <strong>the</strong> NIB (National Indian Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood, forerunner to <strong>the</strong><br />
Assembly of First Nations), NCC <strong>and</strong> ITC each stated that <strong>the</strong>ir members<br />
represented separate <strong>and</strong> distinct nations, <strong>the</strong> NIB even declaring that<br />
“sovereignty continues to reside in each [Indian] nation.” For <strong>the</strong> NIB <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
NCC, <strong>the</strong>ir status as nations gave <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> right to choose whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y wished<br />
to be part of Confederation or not. 25<br />
<strong>The</strong> prescription, however, was not secession from Canada, but ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
“internal sovereignty” via new political arrangements <strong>and</strong> institutions by<br />
which Aboriginal peoples might govern <strong>the</strong>ir own internal affairs. For <strong>the</strong> NIB<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> NCC, <strong>the</strong> answer lay in <strong>the</strong> formation of a “third order of government”<br />
where Aboriginal governments would exercise a wide range of powers<br />
(combining municipal, provincial <strong>and</strong> some federal powers). Such<br />
governments would exist within current provincial boundaries, but would not<br />
be municipalities or “arms of <strong>the</strong> provincial governments.” 26 <strong>The</strong> ITC, on <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, envisioned <strong>the</strong> creation of a new province in <strong>the</strong> Northwest<br />
Territories in which Inuit would form <strong>the</strong> majority, though <strong>the</strong> ITC was not<br />
proposing “ethnically-exclusive government institutions [or] anything outside<br />
this country’s fundamental political principles.” 27<br />
In <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 round of constitutional reform, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>mes of nationhood <strong>and</strong><br />
sovereignty were expressed anew. <strong>The</strong> AFN’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al Commissioners<br />
for example, reiterated <strong>the</strong> historical basis of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal-Eurocanadian<br />
relationship:<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian government may try to sidestep <strong>the</strong> question of<br />
nationhood for <strong>the</strong> First Peoples, but in <strong>the</strong> 17th <strong>and</strong> 18th centuries, its<br />
predecessors had no such doubts. Treaties weren’t made between<br />
victor <strong>and</strong> defeated or between superior <strong>and</strong> inferior; <strong>the</strong>y were made<br />
between equals, on <strong>the</strong> basis of mutual respect...[Presenters] said that<br />
treaty after treaty...recognized <strong>the</strong> First Nations as independent<br />
equals....[However], unilaterally, <strong>the</strong> Federal government assumed<br />
233
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
responsibility for “Indians” <strong>and</strong> passed <strong>the</strong> Indian Act through a<br />
Parliament for which “status Indians” were not even eligible to<br />
vote....But <strong>the</strong> people who came to join <strong>the</strong> circle were quite clear. At<br />
no point had <strong>the</strong>y or <strong>the</strong>ir ancestors ever consented to be governed by<br />
<strong>the</strong> incomers. We govern ourselves; we have never given up that<br />
right, <strong>the</strong>y told us. Self-government exists. It has always existed; it<br />
will always exist. Recognition of this fundamental fact would be<br />
simple justice, but whatever happens, we are our own people, our<br />
own Nations, with our own culture <strong>and</strong> traditions to treasure. 28<br />
As in <strong>the</strong> 1970s, <strong>the</strong> national Aboriginal organizations used <strong>the</strong> language of<br />
sovereignty, but did not see <strong>the</strong> notion as requiring secession from Canada.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ITC, for example, noted that Inuit have not advocated sovereignty or a<br />
desire to separate from Canada. Instead, “our position signifies <strong>the</strong> opposite<br />
approach, a desire to seek unity with o<strong>the</strong>r Canadians <strong>and</strong> become equal<br />
partners in <strong>the</strong> federation.” 29<br />
While <strong>the</strong> national organizations concurred in this view, it is not necessarily<br />
<strong>the</strong> view espoused by all First Nations, however. Indeed, some Aboriginal<br />
groups have a long history of asserting complete sovereignty <strong>and</strong><br />
independence from Canada. For example, since <strong>the</strong> late 1950s, <strong>the</strong> Iroquois of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Six Nations Confederacy have resisted Canada’s claims to sovereignty<br />
over <strong>the</strong>ir peoples <strong>and</strong> territories, 30 <strong>and</strong> at <strong>the</strong> 1984 FMC on Aboriginal<br />
Matters, Chief Billy Two Rivers of <strong>the</strong> Kahnawake Mohawk Council declared<br />
that:<br />
<strong>The</strong> Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy have no desire to<br />
separate from Canada, since <strong>the</strong> Confederacy have never been part of<br />
Canada....[<strong>The</strong>] new constitution will have no jurisdictional authority<br />
within our territories or over our people. Our people are citizens of<br />
our nation <strong>and</strong> do not seek citizenship within <strong>the</strong> nation of Canada. 31<br />
In view of this position, it is not surprising that <strong>the</strong> Mohawks boycotted <strong>the</strong><br />
October referendum. Nor are <strong>the</strong> Mohawks <strong>the</strong> only Aboriginal group to<br />
challenge <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>and</strong> jurisdiction of <strong>the</strong> Canadian state. In 1989, <strong>the</strong><br />
Haidas of <strong>the</strong> Queen Charlotte Isl<strong>and</strong>s off <strong>the</strong> coast of British Columbia<br />
declared <strong>the</strong>mselves an independent nation, <strong>and</strong> even issued passports to<br />
underscore <strong>the</strong> point. While such dramatic declarations have been <strong>the</strong><br />
exception ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> rule in Aboriginal politics, <strong>the</strong>re is some evidence<br />
that <strong>the</strong> idea of absolute sovereignty has begun to take hold among more<br />
Aboriginal groups, <strong>and</strong> Chartr<strong>and</strong> notes that “Aboriginal leaders are now<br />
concerned with asserting <strong>the</strong> illegitimacy of <strong>the</strong> Canadian state <strong>and</strong> its<br />
constitution on <strong>the</strong> basis that it was imposed upon Aboriginal peoples.” 32 Not<br />
surprisingly, <strong>the</strong> issue of sovereignty was to surface in <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 round of<br />
constitutional reform.<br />
<strong>The</strong> logic of <strong>the</strong> claim to nationhood <strong>and</strong> continuing sovereignty ultimately<br />
produces a claim to an inherent right to self-government in <strong>the</strong> present. When<br />
<strong>the</strong> federal government’s September 1991 document, Shaping Canada’s<br />
Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r, proposed to enshrine in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> a general right to<br />
self-government (subject to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights, federal <strong>and</strong> provincial laws<br />
of general application <strong>and</strong> a ten-year delay on justiciability), Aboriginal<br />
leaders across <strong>the</strong> country reacted with considerable skepticism. Ovide<br />
Mercredi <strong>and</strong> Saul Terry of <strong>the</strong> Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs<br />
234
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
(among o<strong>the</strong>rs) took <strong>the</strong> position that nothing less than <strong>the</strong> recognition of selfgovernment<br />
as an inherent right would be acceptable. Within a month,<br />
Mercredi was threatening to boycott <strong>the</strong> Parliamentary “unity” process unless<br />
<strong>the</strong> inherent right to self-government was recognized. At <strong>the</strong> opening of <strong>the</strong><br />
AFN’s “parallel process,” Mercredi even went as far as to say that if inherent<br />
rights were not acknowledged, Aboriginal people could form <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />
national government <strong>and</strong> declare sovereignty <strong>and</strong> independence from<br />
Canada. 33 Although <strong>the</strong>y did not necessarily support <strong>the</strong> latter claim, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
national Aboriginal organizations lined up behind <strong>the</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> for <strong>the</strong> inherent<br />
right.<br />
<strong>The</strong> language of inherency has much more than merely symbolic importance. It<br />
recognizes <strong>the</strong> fact that Aboriginal peoples were historically self-governing, that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y never gave up <strong>the</strong> right to govern <strong>the</strong>mselves, <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> right is not<br />
granted by any o<strong>the</strong>r government or legislative or constitutional enactment.<br />
Ultimately, it signifies a pre-existing, natural <strong>and</strong> continuing right which cannot<br />
be abrogated or revoked by any o<strong>the</strong>r government, especially without <strong>the</strong><br />
consent of Aboriginal peoples.<br />
Throughout <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal parallel process of 1991-92, speakers emphasized<br />
<strong>the</strong> inherent nature of Aboriginal rights, although its consequences were<br />
expressed in different ways. <strong>The</strong> AFN’s Commissioners noted that:<br />
<strong>The</strong> word “inherent” has caused considerable confusion. In fact, it’s<br />
very simple. <strong>The</strong> people say that First Nations self-government<br />
exists; <strong>the</strong> question is one of recognition only. <strong>The</strong> federal<br />
government cannot grant self-government to <strong>the</strong> First Nations any<br />
more than <strong>the</strong> Mayor of Sudbury can declare war on Japan. A man<br />
cannot divorce a woman who never married him....<strong>The</strong> people claim<br />
that this right stems from First Nations’ occupation of <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong> from<br />
time immemorial, from Aboriginal title <strong>and</strong> rights recognized under<br />
international conventions, from elementary principles of democracy.<br />
We heard that <strong>the</strong> federal <strong>and</strong> provincial governments cannot give <strong>the</strong><br />
First Nations <strong>the</strong> right to self-government, because that right has been<br />
given <strong>the</strong>m by an even more powerful governor [<strong>the</strong> Great Creator].<br />
All governments can do is to recognize <strong>the</strong> fact. 34<br />
Each of <strong>the</strong> national organizations insisted that <strong>the</strong> inherent right should be<br />
enshrined without limitations. <strong>The</strong> ITC took <strong>the</strong> view that “by virtue of being<br />
inherent <strong>and</strong> a fundamental right of indigenous peoples, <strong>the</strong> right of selfgovernment<br />
is of a permanent nature <strong>and</strong> cannot be restricted or limited to<br />
delegated powers. 35 Meanwhile, <strong>the</strong> NCC’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al Review<br />
Commission recommended: that <strong>the</strong> inherent right be immediately entrenched<br />
without a delay on enforcement; that it include title <strong>and</strong> ownership of l<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong><br />
resources; that <strong>the</strong> Indian Act system not be <strong>the</strong> basis for self-government; that<br />
<strong>the</strong> right should be “freely exercisable by all Aboriginal people regardless of<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir status under <strong>the</strong> Indian Act, or of where <strong>the</strong>y live”; <strong>and</strong> that it could not<br />
limit or detract from “existing rights <strong>and</strong> our original jurisdictions.” 36<br />
<strong>The</strong> appearanœ of <strong>the</strong> conœpt of inherency in 1991-92 seemed to surprise <strong>the</strong><br />
viewing public, as well as many politicians, who seemed never to have heard<br />
of it before. Yet <strong>the</strong> four national Aboriginal organizations had been using it<br />
for some years. In fact, <strong>the</strong>y had tabled a “Joint Aboriginal Proposal for Self-<br />
Government” during <strong>the</strong> 1987 FMC, which proposed to recognize <strong>and</strong> affirm<br />
<strong>the</strong> inherent right. Negotiations were to proceed on such issues as l<strong>and</strong>s,<br />
235
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
resourœs, economic <strong>and</strong> fiscal arrangements, education, preservation <strong>and</strong><br />
enhanœment of Aboriginal languages <strong>and</strong> cultures, <strong>and</strong> equity of access. 37 It<br />
must be noted, however, that at that time Aboriginal issues did not enjoy a<br />
particularly high profile in Canadian politics, nor were Aboriginal<br />
organizations able to flex <strong>the</strong> political muscle developed latterly by virtue of<br />
<strong>the</strong> collapse of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, <strong>the</strong> militancy at Oka <strong>and</strong> a variety of<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r factors.<br />
For several months after <strong>the</strong> release of Shaping Canada’s Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong><br />
federal government vigorously resisted <strong>the</strong> idea of inherency. Tom Siddon, <strong>the</strong><br />
Minister of Indian Affairs, said that Ottawa was willing to make jurisdictional<br />
spaœ for native self-government, “but not if it means yielding <strong>the</strong> ultimate<br />
sovereignty of <strong>the</strong> Crown <strong>and</strong> of Canada.” 38 <strong>The</strong> major concern was that <strong>the</strong><br />
idea of inherency might import a right to sovereign independence from<br />
Canada, that it might produce a “Swiss cheese map riddled with tiny pockets of<br />
independent native nations.” 39 Joe Clark, <strong>the</strong> Minister Responsible for<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Affairs, did not rule out inherency, but told <strong>the</strong> NCC at a<br />
meeting in Hull, Quebec on November 7, 1991, that:<br />
We believe that <strong>the</strong> word—undefined or unmodifed—could be used<br />
as <strong>the</strong> basis for a claim to international sovereignty or as <strong>the</strong><br />
justification of a unilateral approach to deciding what laws did or did<br />
not apply to Aboriginal peoples....If Aboriginal Canadians can help<br />
define what inherency would mean in practical terms—in terms of<br />
authorities <strong>and</strong> jurisdictions <strong>and</strong> powers—in such a way that <strong>the</strong><br />
integrity of this federation is not put in question, we would welcome<br />
that. We are not opposed to inherency.”<br />
<strong>The</strong>se concerns were certainly not alleviated by <strong>the</strong> threats of secession made<br />
by Mercredi <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, <strong>and</strong> particularly by Aboriginal leaders in Quebec, who<br />
feared for <strong>the</strong>ir collective fate should Quebec itself secede from Canada. Nor<br />
were <strong>the</strong> government’s fears tranquilized by assurances that Aboriginal groups<br />
were really after inclusion in <strong>the</strong> federation, particularly as Aboriginal<br />
lobbying on <strong>the</strong> international front in recent years has been devoted to gaining<br />
recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, whe<strong>the</strong>r within<br />
or outside existing nation-states. 40<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, governments’ concerns notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing, by early 1992 <strong>the</strong><br />
concept of inherency appeared to have penetrated <strong>the</strong> Canadian political<br />
psyche. Amid government charges that Aboriginal (<strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r “special<br />
interest”) groups were “hijacking” <strong>the</strong> five constitutional conferences, <strong>the</strong><br />
final wrap-up conference in Vancouver concluded that “<strong>the</strong> inherent right of<br />
self-government, exercised within Canada, should be recognized in <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>, including jurisdictions over l<strong>and</strong>s, resources, culture, <strong>and</strong><br />
language.” 41 Similarly, <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples<br />
intervened in <strong>the</strong> process in mid-February. <strong>The</strong> Commission recommended<br />
that “...any new constitutional provision dealing with <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal right of<br />
self-government...should indicate that <strong>the</strong> right is inherent in nature,<br />
circumscribed in extent, <strong>and</strong> sovereign in its sphere.” 42 Although some<br />
Aboriginal leaders (such as Yvon Dumont of <strong>the</strong> Metis National Council)<br />
objected to <strong>the</strong> limitations <strong>the</strong> Commission would place on <strong>the</strong> right even<br />
before negotiations had begun, 43 <strong>the</strong> intervention never<strong>the</strong>less lent added<br />
credibility to <strong>the</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> for an inherent right.<br />
236
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
In a similar vein, <strong>the</strong> Beaudoin-Dobbie Committee, which reported in late<br />
February after conducting nation-wide hearings, recommended “<strong>the</strong><br />
entrenchment in section 35 of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, 1982 of <strong>the</strong> inherent right<br />
of Aboriginal peoples to self-government within Canada.” 44 With two of <strong>the</strong><br />
government’s own committees on-side, <strong>the</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> for entrenchment of <strong>the</strong><br />
inherent right to self-government seemed unassailable. It survived <strong>the</strong><br />
subsequent rounds of bargaining among <strong>the</strong> First Ministers, <strong>the</strong> territorial<br />
governments <strong>and</strong> representatives of <strong>the</strong> four national Aboriginal organizations<br />
held from May to August, 1992, <strong>and</strong> appeared in <strong>the</strong> Draft Legal Text of <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord of October 9, 1992.<br />
Hence, with regard to <strong>the</strong> inherent right to self-government, <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown<br />
Accord was an exceptional coup for <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal organizations <strong>and</strong> leaders<br />
(particularly Ovide Mercredi) who risked exclusion of <strong>the</strong>ir dem<strong>and</strong>s from <strong>the</strong><br />
process of reform altoge<strong>the</strong>r by holding out for an unassailable inherent right.<br />
This achievement is <strong>the</strong> more notable, since, as Chartr<strong>and</strong> notes, “traditionally,<br />
<strong>the</strong> judicial dialogue of ‘rights’ has considered rights as legal boundaries<br />
beyond which <strong>the</strong> individuaT is shielded from <strong>the</strong> legislative intrusion of <strong>the</strong><br />
State [whereas] governmental ‘rights’ to legislate have been expressed in<br />
terms of ‘powers’, not of ‘rights.”’ 45 What is significant <strong>the</strong>n, is <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
whereas <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two levels of government cannot claim “rights” vis-à-vis one<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r (<strong>the</strong>y can at most claim <strong>the</strong> improper exercise of power beyond <strong>the</strong><br />
jurisdictional powers set out in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act), Aboriginal governments<br />
would have been able to claim a right to govern, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y would claim it vis-àvis<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r governments. Moreover, Aboriginal governments were to enter <strong>the</strong><br />
domain of law-making under <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> (albeit subject to some<br />
constraints), an historic reversal of over a century of colonial law.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Intersection of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> Quebec <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Agendas: “Two Founding Nations” <strong>and</strong> Distinct Society Status<br />
Since before Confederation, <strong>the</strong> relationship between English <strong>and</strong> French<br />
Canada has been characterized as a compact between “two founding nations.”<br />
Indeed, federalism itself has been regarded as an arrangement designed to join<br />
<strong>the</strong> two ethnic/linguistic groups in a system which would allow each to flourish<br />
while reaping <strong>the</strong> benefits of broader union. Since Quebec’s “Quiet<br />
Revolution” of <strong>the</strong> 1960s, <strong>the</strong> agenda of constitutional reform has revolved<br />
largely around Quebec’s dem<strong>and</strong>s for a renegotiation of <strong>the</strong> division of powers<br />
to facilitate its nation-building strategies. <strong>The</strong> conception of Canada as a<br />
compact between English- <strong>and</strong> French- speaking peoples has been reinforced<br />
by federal policies such as official bilingualism. Moreover, various initiatives,<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Victoria <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of 1971 to Meech <strong>La</strong>ke, to <strong>the</strong> post-Meech round of<br />
1991-92, have attempted to solve <strong>the</strong> problem of Quebec’s dem<strong>and</strong>s for more<br />
provincial powers as well as a veto over subsequent constitutional change.<br />
Although challenged by <strong>the</strong> principle of <strong>the</strong> equality of <strong>the</strong> provinces <strong>and</strong> by<br />
multiculturalism, <strong>the</strong> two nations conception has survived as a dominant<br />
element of Canadian political discourse.<br />
Canada’s Aboriginal peoples, however, have long rejected <strong>the</strong> “two founding<br />
nations” conception of Canada. In fact, it is almost always characterized as a<br />
“myth.” For example, as early as 1979, <strong>the</strong> National Indian Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood (NIB,<br />
later retitled <strong>the</strong> Assembly of First Nations) told <strong>the</strong>Task Force on Canadian<br />
Unity that “<strong>the</strong> myth suggesting that <strong>the</strong> French <strong>and</strong> English are founding<br />
peoples of Canada... is historically inaccurate <strong>and</strong> an insult to <strong>the</strong> Indian people<br />
of Canada.” 46<br />
237
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
However, <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal challenge to <strong>the</strong> dominant conception of <strong>the</strong> national<br />
compact did not gain currency until <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 “Canada Round.” Throughout<br />
<strong>the</strong> four Aboriginal parallel processes (<strong>and</strong> elsewhere), opinion was uniform<br />
that this conception was in need of revision as it excluded <strong>the</strong> original<br />
inhabitants of <strong>the</strong> continent. For example, an ITC position paper pointed out<br />
that “<strong>the</strong> myth of English <strong>and</strong> French speahng Canadians as <strong>the</strong> two founding<br />
peoples of Canada ignores <strong>the</strong> contribution <strong>and</strong> needs of Aboriginal peoples as<br />
Canada’s first citizens.” 47 Similarly, a number of submissions to <strong>the</strong> AFN’s<br />
First Nations Circle asserted <strong>the</strong> prior presence <strong>and</strong> unique rights of Aboriginal<br />
peoples:<br />
<strong>The</strong> principle of two founding nations is one of <strong>the</strong> biggest fallacies in<br />
this century. Time did not start ticking on this continent when <strong>the</strong><br />
European people arrived. <strong>The</strong> constitution must recognize <strong>and</strong> give<br />
due regard to <strong>the</strong> special status <strong>the</strong> First Nations have in Canada. 48<br />
On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, perhaps because a significant proportion of its constituency<br />
is Metis, <strong>the</strong> NCC has taken a less pointed <strong>and</strong> perhaps more conciliatory view<br />
of <strong>the</strong> “two founding nations” discourse. <strong>The</strong> NCC’s Executive Task Force on<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> in fact called for “a recognition of French Canada as a<br />
founding or distinct society,” on <strong>the</strong> basis that <strong>the</strong> Quebec <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal<br />
positions should be “mutually supportable.” 49<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, during <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 process, <strong>the</strong> two nations concept was under<br />
siege, displaced by an alternate concept: three founding peoples. <strong>The</strong> AFN<br />
First Nations Circle Commissioners, for example, concluded that “<strong>the</strong>re is<br />
widespread <strong>and</strong> growing support for <strong>the</strong> position that First Nations are one of<br />
Canada’s three founding peoples.” 50 In fact, <strong>the</strong> idea had surfaced during <strong>the</strong><br />
five constitutional conferences held in various cities in early 1992. <strong>The</strong><br />
Toronto conference in particular (which focussed on <strong>the</strong> “distinct society”<br />
clause) endorsed NCC President Ron George’s insistence that Aboriginal<br />
peoples be accepted as <strong>the</strong> first of three “founding national communities.” 51<br />
Indeed, so powerful was <strong>the</strong> displacement of <strong>the</strong> two nations concept that even<br />
central Canadian academics, who had long accepted it, began to make space in<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir constitutional discourse for Aboriginal peoples.<br />
Of course, <strong>the</strong> three founding peoples concept is an unsatisfactory rival to <strong>the</strong><br />
two nations concept, since Aboriginal peoples have been adamant in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
insistence that <strong>the</strong>y are not an undifferentiated mass, but are distinctive nations<br />
in <strong>the</strong>ir own right. However, <strong>the</strong> idea was to displace <strong>the</strong> previous exclusionary<br />
discourse. More than anything, <strong>the</strong> “three founding peoples” concept<br />
challenges <strong>the</strong> core of <strong>the</strong> Canadian federal community’s self-definition; it<br />
requires a radical reconceptualization of <strong>the</strong> political compact. As Chartr<strong>and</strong><br />
observes:<br />
238<br />
<strong>The</strong> nationalistic movement among Aboriginal peoples presents a<br />
challenge to <strong>the</strong> notion of two founding nations in establishing <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian state. Since <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal peoples had virtually no say in<br />
<strong>the</strong> establishment of Canada, <strong>the</strong> legitimacy of Canada, not only as a<br />
constitutional entity, but as a country with a legitimate vision of its<br />
own society is being challenged. It so happens, however, that <strong>the</strong><br />
Aboriginal nationalism is occuring at a time when <strong>the</strong> nationalism of<br />
one of <strong>the</strong> “offficial founding nations” is itself causing a fundamental<br />
re-examination of <strong>the</strong> legitimacy of <strong>the</strong> existing order. 52
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
<strong>The</strong> problem with <strong>the</strong> alternative conception, however, concerned its<br />
implications for <strong>the</strong> manner in which Aboriginal peoples would be recognized<br />
in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>. Since <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, in which Quebec was to be<br />
recognized as a “distinct society,” <strong>the</strong> term had become widely associated with<br />
Quebec’s status claims. However, Aboriginal groups had been using it since at<br />
least <strong>the</strong> 1970s. 53 In May 1987, <strong>the</strong> leaders of <strong>the</strong> four national Aboriginal<br />
organizations had written a letter to <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister asking for recognition<br />
of Aboriginal peoples as a distinct society in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord. 54 Hence,<br />
by <strong>the</strong> 1990s, Aboriginal leaders resented <strong>the</strong> implication that Quebec had<br />
somehow gained a copyright on <strong>the</strong> concept. Thus began <strong>the</strong> discursive<br />
competition between Aboriginal versus Quebec claims. It was not simply a<br />
question of “whatever Quebec gets, we want too.” Instead, it was a question of<br />
prior claims, as well as of <strong>the</strong> effect of distinct society status for Quebec on <strong>the</strong><br />
Aboriginal populations of that province. As <strong>the</strong> Commissioners of <strong>the</strong> AFN’<br />
First Nations Circle noted:<br />
<strong>The</strong> people who spoke to us said this: of course Quebec is distinct<br />
from English Canada...<strong>The</strong> cultures are not <strong>the</strong> same...We<br />
sympathize with Quebec’s desire to preserve <strong>and</strong> transmit what is<br />
uniquely Quebecois. All we ask is that <strong>the</strong>y give us <strong>the</strong> same right that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y claim for <strong>the</strong>mselves...Aboriginal peoples are not merely<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r ethnic group like <strong>the</strong> Ukrainians or <strong>the</strong> Dutch. We too are a<br />
distinct society. We are <strong>the</strong> original society....how does one define<br />
“distinctness”? Linguistic differences? As one white contributor<br />
pointed out, French <strong>and</strong> English belong to <strong>the</strong> same family of<br />
languages....Our languages belong to an entirely different group.<br />
Legal systems? <strong>The</strong> Common <strong>La</strong>w of English Canada <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Napoleonic Code may differ, but <strong>the</strong>y share <strong>the</strong> same approach to<br />
crime <strong>and</strong> punishment, an approach totally unlike Aboriginal justice.<br />
Cultural differences? Consider Aboriginal attitudes towards l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
ownership, which are radically different from whites’. [One]<br />
presenter noted that Aboriginal peoples are so distinct that even <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
biochemistry, <strong>the</strong>ir blood types <strong>and</strong> metabolism, are not quite <strong>the</strong><br />
same as Eurocanadians’...If <strong>the</strong>re is to be competition for Most<br />
Distinct Society in Canada, <strong>the</strong> French would not be winners. <strong>The</strong><br />
competition matters only because Quebec, in dem<strong>and</strong>ing its rights,<br />
risks trampling on ours. Fear for <strong>the</strong> future of First Nations in Quebec<br />
was voiced...all across <strong>the</strong> country. It is not in Quebec’s interests to<br />
respect First Nations’ rights. 55<br />
In a similar vein, Ovide Mercredi, National Chief of <strong>the</strong> AFN, addressed <strong>the</strong><br />
Commons-Senate Committee on a Renewed Canada (<strong>the</strong> Beaudoin -Dobbie<br />
Committee), outlining not only <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal claim to distinct society status,<br />
but also <strong>the</strong> potential dangers to Aboriginal interests if Quebec were so<br />
recognized:<br />
We want to preserve a distinct way of life that has suffered<br />
dramatically under policies of assimilation. So we look at <strong>the</strong><br />
constitution as a vehicle for accomplishing that objective...<strong>The</strong><br />
recognition of Quebec as a distinct society can be very detrimental to<br />
First Nations within Quebec. It does not take much to conjure<br />
numerous possibilities of how this recognition can be used to <strong>the</strong><br />
detriment of First Nations, from l<strong>and</strong> claims to hydroelectric<br />
239
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
developments to language programs to education <strong>and</strong> even military<br />
defence. 56<br />
<strong>The</strong>se concerns were echoed by <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r national Aboriginal organizations.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ITC, for example, took <strong>the</strong> position that:<br />
Inuit strongly believe that it is necessary to identify Aboriginal<br />
peoples as distinct societies...[T]he constitutional recognition of<br />
Quebec as a distinct society wlthout also recognizing Aboriginal<br />
peoples places us in a disadvantageous position. For example, it<br />
could result in Inuit language rights in certain regions of Canada<br />
being accorded secondary status. 57<br />
Again, <strong>the</strong> NCC’s position was less pointed, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization’s<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Review Commission took <strong>the</strong> view that <strong>the</strong>re was no need to<br />
apply <strong>the</strong> words “distinct societies” to Aboriginal nations, provided that<br />
terminology with an “equivalent significance <strong>and</strong> authority within <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>” was used. 58 <strong>The</strong> NCC was concerned, never<strong>the</strong>less, about<br />
Quebec’s reluctance to recognize distinct society status for Aboriginal<br />
peoples, particularly as off-reserve Indian <strong>and</strong> Metis people in Quebec would<br />
be threatened by <strong>the</strong> imposition of <strong>the</strong> province’s cultural <strong>and</strong> language laws. 59<br />
It was at <strong>the</strong> Toronto conference, however, that <strong>the</strong> competition between<br />
Aboriginal peoples <strong>and</strong> Quebec over distinct society status reached new<br />
heights. Though Aboriginal organizations had not been formally invited to<br />
participate in <strong>the</strong> conference, Mercredi went anyway. He was successful in<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>the</strong> right to speak <strong>and</strong> complained about <strong>the</strong> exclusion of<br />
Aboriginal groups at <strong>the</strong> conference. <strong>The</strong> opening plenary ended with Zebedee<br />
Nungak of <strong>the</strong> ITC displaying a map of Quebec in which approximately one<br />
half of <strong>the</strong> territory (coloured red) was carved out as <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal territories<br />
which could secede from Quebec if Quebec seceded from Canada. 60 A few<br />
days later, Mercredi addressed <strong>the</strong> Quebec National Assembly committee<br />
examining sovereignty, <strong>and</strong> disputed Quebec’s right to self-determination:<br />
Self-determination is not a right of a “province.” It is <strong>the</strong> right of all<br />
peoples. Are <strong>the</strong> “people of Quebec” a “people” in <strong>the</strong> international<br />
legal sense? <strong>The</strong> population of Quebec is made up of a wide range of<br />
racial <strong>and</strong> ethnic groups. It cannot be considered to be a single<br />
“people” with <strong>the</strong> right of self-determination. O<strong>the</strong>rwise, <strong>the</strong> “people<br />
of Canada” would also be a “people” for <strong>the</strong> purpose of international<br />
law. Through such interpretations, <strong>the</strong> essential purposes of selfdetermination<br />
would be defeated....It is not clear to whom <strong>the</strong> term<br />
“Québécois” refers. Does it imply that people of all racial, national<br />
<strong>and</strong> ethnic origins living within Quebec are a single people...with one<br />
right to self-determination? Are French Quebeckers <strong>and</strong> First<br />
Nations within Quebec part of a single people? If this is your view,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n it is contrary to our right to self-determination <strong>and</strong> selfidentification.<br />
6l<br />
<strong>The</strong> map incident, toge<strong>the</strong>r with Mercredi’s comments, provoked angry<br />
reactions in Quebec It also sparked dissent among Aboriginal organizations.<br />
Ron George of <strong>the</strong> NCC, for example, told <strong>the</strong> Beaudoin-Dobbie Committee<br />
that “we are not going to get dragged into a phony war with French Canada or<br />
240
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
Quebec,” <strong>and</strong> maintained that Aboriginal peoples did not need distinct society<br />
status as well as recognition of <strong>the</strong> inherent right to self-government. 62<br />
Perhaps because Mercredi realized that Quebec’s consent would be required<br />
for any constitutional amendment package (<strong>and</strong> perhaps in part because<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Affairs Minister, Joe Clark, warned that such “inflammatory”<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s could result in <strong>the</strong> exclusion of Aboriginal issues from <strong>the</strong><br />
package63), Mercredi’s position softened considerably over <strong>the</strong> ensuing<br />
months. In <strong>the</strong> final rounds of negotiation over <strong>the</strong> summer of 1992, <strong>the</strong><br />
dem<strong>and</strong> for recognition of Aboriginal peoples as distinct societies was<br />
dropped. <strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Accord, however, though avoiding that<br />
terminology, included what amounted to a distinct society clause for<br />
Aboriginal peoples in s.2(b) of <strong>the</strong> Canada clause (quoted above).<br />
Hence, while Aboriginal leaders did not succeed in <strong>the</strong>ir quest to obtain<br />
distinct society status for Aboriginal peoples, <strong>the</strong> language of <strong>the</strong> Canada<br />
clause, toge<strong>the</strong>r with recognition of <strong>the</strong> inherent right to self-government,<br />
were arguably stronger guarantees than that imported by <strong>the</strong> distinct society<br />
terminology. <strong>The</strong> discursive breakthrough was significant, moreover, since<br />
<strong>the</strong> bubble of “two nations” had been pricked, <strong>and</strong> as it was widely realized that<br />
Aboriginal peoples had a legitimate claim to special status which could not be<br />
neglected in constitutional reform.<br />
Individual versus Collective Rights: Gender Equality <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Application of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
One of <strong>the</strong> cornerstones of Aboriginal constitutional discourse in recent years<br />
has been <strong>the</strong> primacy of collective over individual rights. Aboriginal rights<br />
claims are claims to collective rights, wherein rights inure to individuals by<br />
virtue of <strong>the</strong>ir group membership. Whereas an Aboriginal right (such as <strong>the</strong><br />
right to hunt or fish) may be exercised by individuals, access to <strong>the</strong> right is predetermined<br />
by <strong>the</strong>ir membership in Aboriginal communities. However, l<strong>and</strong><br />
rights under Aboriginal title, for example, cannot be claimed by individuals, as<br />
<strong>the</strong> notion of Aboriginal title is founded upon <strong>the</strong> idea that l<strong>and</strong>s are held by<br />
communities, not by individuals.<br />
<strong>The</strong> discourse of rights is a ra<strong>the</strong>r recent phenomenon among Aboriginal<br />
peoples, who did not traditionally structure <strong>the</strong>ir communities around rights<br />
concepts. Aboriginal leaders <strong>and</strong> scholars in recent years have critiqued <strong>the</strong><br />
entire basis of <strong>the</strong> rights approach to mediating <strong>the</strong> competing claims of<br />
individuals <strong>and</strong> groups. Mary Ellen Turpel, for example, points out that “rights<br />
discourse has been widely appropriated by Aboriginal peoples in struggles<br />
against <strong>the</strong> effects of colonialism.” 64 However, rights discourse is based on<br />
liberal, individualist ideology with its celebration of <strong>the</strong> right to private<br />
property. This discourse, she argues, is not congruent with Aboriginal<br />
philosophies, since rights are seen as erecting fences around <strong>the</strong> individual <strong>the</strong><br />
better to protect her against harm from o<strong>the</strong>rs:<br />
Although <strong>the</strong>re is no culture or system of beliefs shared by all<br />
Aboriginal peoples, <strong>the</strong> paradigm of rights based conceptually on <strong>the</strong><br />
prototype of right of individual ownership of property is anti<strong>the</strong>tical<br />
to <strong>the</strong> widely shared underst<strong>and</strong>ing of creation <strong>and</strong> stewardship<br />
responsibilities of First Nations peoples for <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>, for Mo<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Earth. Moreover, to my knowledge <strong>the</strong>re are no narratives among<br />
Aboriginal peoples of living toge<strong>the</strong>r for <strong>the</strong> purposes of protecting<br />
241
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
an individual interest in property....<strong>The</strong> collective or communal basis<br />
of Aboriginal life does not really...have a parallel to individual rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> conceptions of law are simply incommensurable....Aboriginal<br />
rights claims are, in my view, requests for <strong>the</strong> recognition by <strong>the</strong><br />
dominant (European) culture of <strong>the</strong> existence of ano<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>and</strong> for<br />
toleration of, <strong>and</strong> respect for, <strong>the</strong> practical obstacles that <strong>the</strong> request<br />
brings with it. While this may be cloaked in rights talk, <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
something at stake that is larger than rights, <strong>and</strong> that is conceivably<br />
outside of <strong>the</strong> texts of particular documents intended to guarantee<br />
human rights...What is at stake is a more basic, less “legalized”<br />
condition of survival: <strong>the</strong> dignity of existing as Peoples. 65<br />
<strong>The</strong> clash of individual <strong>and</strong> collective rights was most clearly demonstrated in<br />
1969 when <strong>the</strong> Trudeau government’s proposal that “<strong>the</strong> Indian people’s role<br />
of dependence be replaced by a role of equal status, opportunity <strong>and</strong><br />
responsibility” 66 was resoundingly rejected by status Indians. Those who<br />
would have been stripped of <strong>the</strong>ir special status <strong>and</strong> rights under <strong>the</strong> Indian Act<br />
were manifestly uninterested in <strong>the</strong> sacred cows of liberal individualist<br />
ideology—equality of opportunity <strong>and</strong> freedom from discrimination based on<br />
race, ethnicity, religion, gender <strong>and</strong> so on. That is not to suggest that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
favoured inequality <strong>and</strong> discrimination. Instead, <strong>the</strong>y objected that such<br />
individual rights <strong>and</strong> liberties were being offered at <strong>the</strong> expense of special<br />
status <strong>and</strong> group rights.<br />
<strong>The</strong> problems of individual versus collective rights are pertinent to Aboriginal<br />
constitutional discourse in two major respects. In <strong>the</strong> first instance, Aboriginal<br />
rights (such as self-government, hunting, fishing <strong>and</strong> treaty rights) are<br />
collective claims in <strong>the</strong> positive sense of extending power to Abonginal<br />
nations to take certain actions (to make laws, for example). <strong>The</strong>y are also<br />
negative in <strong>the</strong> sense of requiring freedom from interference by o<strong>the</strong>rs in <strong>the</strong><br />
exercise of rights. Essentially, <strong>the</strong>se are rights claimed against o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
governments; <strong>the</strong>y concern relations of power between Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> non-<br />
Aboriginal peoples. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>the</strong> intersection of individual <strong>and</strong><br />
collective rights within Aboriginal communities is a different order of<br />
problem.<br />
With regard to <strong>the</strong> relations of power between Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> non Aboriginal<br />
peoples, many have pointed out that while <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights may be <strong>the</strong><br />
coronation of liberal individualism, it has never<strong>the</strong>less recognized certain<br />
group entitlements, such as language rights. Cenainly, <strong>the</strong> mainstream<br />
discourse of rights has exp<strong>and</strong>ed sufficiently to include collective rights, <strong>and</strong><br />
in a series of cases, <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court has recognized that equality may mean<br />
treating groups (not just individuals) differently to ameliorate conditions of<br />
disadvantage. 67 As <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord proposed to add to <strong>the</strong> collective<br />
rights of Aboriginal peoples which had been enshrined in l982, Canadian<br />
political elites at least have shown <strong>the</strong>mselves willing to accommodate certain<br />
group rights.<br />
However, <strong>the</strong> question of rights within Aboriginal communities, <strong>and</strong><br />
particularly under self-government regimes, is an especially delicate one. It<br />
involves <strong>the</strong> ability of individuals to claim individual rights against a group<br />
exercising collective rights. This issue surfaced in <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 constitutional<br />
talks, revolving around <strong>the</strong> application of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights to Aboriginal<br />
governments. Aboriginal leaders have long rejected <strong>the</strong> idea that Aboriginal<br />
governments should be subject to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> on <strong>the</strong> grounds that some <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
242
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
rights could be inconsistent with <strong>the</strong> exercise of self-government, particularly<br />
in <strong>the</strong> case of communities wishing to follow <strong>the</strong>ir traditional modes of<br />
governance. For example, in 1982 <strong>the</strong> National Chief of <strong>the</strong> AFN told <strong>the</strong><br />
Commons St<strong>and</strong>ing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that:<br />
...as Indian people we cannot afford to have individual rights override<br />
collective rights. Our societies have never been structured that way,<br />
unlike yours, <strong>and</strong> that is where <strong>the</strong> clash comes...If you isolate <strong>the</strong><br />
individual rights from <strong>the</strong> collective rights, <strong>the</strong>n you are heading<br />
down ano<strong>the</strong>r path that is even more discriminatory...<strong>The</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights is in conflict with our philosophy <strong>and</strong> culture. 68<br />
Mary Ellen Turpel (coincidentally <strong>the</strong> AFN’s chief constitutional adviser) has<br />
offered a number of arguments against <strong>the</strong> application of <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> or individual<br />
rights to Aboriginal governments. She points out that “it is difficult for a<br />
culturally distinct people to define <strong>the</strong> trajectory of its own development if<br />
individuals from within or outside <strong>the</strong> culture can challenge collective<br />
decisions on <strong>the</strong> basis that <strong>the</strong>y infringe <strong>the</strong>ir individual rights under <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Canadian legal system that does not underst<strong>and</strong>, or give priority<br />
to, collective goals.” 69 Turpel warns of <strong>the</strong> threat to <strong>the</strong> cultural identity of<br />
communities pursuing <strong>the</strong>ir idiosyncratic political <strong>and</strong> spiritual traditions if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are subject to ei<strong>the</strong>r internal challenges by <strong>the</strong>ir own members, or external<br />
challenges by non-Aboriginal individuals arguing that Aboriginal laws do not<br />
conform to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>:<br />
In <strong>the</strong> case of an external challenge, for example, on <strong>the</strong> basis of<br />
voting or c<strong>and</strong>idacy rights where a non-Aboriginal complainant<br />
argued that <strong>the</strong>y could not vote or st<strong>and</strong> for elections in an Aboriginal<br />
community, a Canadian court would be given <strong>the</strong> authority to decide<br />
an important part of <strong>the</strong> future for an Aboriginal people. It would have<br />
to [weigh] <strong>the</strong> protections afforded Aboriginal rights by section 25 of<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> [against] <strong>the</strong> individual right to vote recognized in section<br />
3. Should Canadian courts (<strong>and</strong> non-Aboriginal judges) have<br />
authority in such cases? <strong>The</strong> critical question is, do <strong>the</strong>y have cultural<br />
authority?...<br />
<strong>The</strong>...internal challenge is conceivable where a member of an<br />
Aboriginal community who feels dissatisfied with a particular course<br />
of action <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal government has taken, or envisages taking,<br />
turns to <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> for <strong>the</strong> recognition of a right. This is an equally, if<br />
not more, worrisome prospect. This kind of challenge would be a<br />
dangerous opening for a ruling by a Canadian court on individual<br />
versus collective rights within an Aboriginal community. It<br />
would...break down community methods of dispute resolution <strong>and</strong><br />
restoration....It would also have <strong>the</strong> effect of encouraging people to<br />
go outside <strong>the</strong> community <strong>and</strong> its customs, to settle disputes in formal<br />
courts, instead of dealing with problems within <strong>the</strong> community. This<br />
is particularly threatening, perhaps even ethnocidal, to Aboriginal<br />
peoples who are on <strong>the</strong> brink of cultural destruction because of <strong>the</strong><br />
legacy of colonialism <strong>and</strong> paternalism under <strong>the</strong> Indian Act. 70<br />
<strong>The</strong>se sorts of concerns explain why Aboriginal organizations insisted that s. 3<br />
should not be applied to Aboriginal governments. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, in addition to<br />
democratic rights, it is possible that <strong>the</strong> legal rights in Sections 7 to 14 of <strong>the</strong><br />
243
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> may pose similar problems for Aboriginal governments seeking to<br />
follow Aboriginal justice traditions. Mobility <strong>and</strong> equality rights could<br />
likewise make Aboriginal governments vulnerable to both internal <strong>and</strong><br />
external challenges. <strong>The</strong> solution in <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord was to offer<br />
Aboriginal governments access to Section 33, <strong>the</strong> override clause, so that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
could exempt certain of <strong>the</strong>ir laws from fundamental freedoms, legal <strong>and</strong><br />
equality rights.<br />
<strong>The</strong> antagonism between individual <strong>and</strong> collective rights was not to be so<br />
easily resolved, however. One of <strong>the</strong> keenest ironies of <strong>the</strong> recent process was<br />
that, at <strong>the</strong> very moment when non-Aboriginal governments (<strong>and</strong> a large<br />
proportion of <strong>the</strong> citizenry) were accepting for <strong>the</strong> first time <strong>the</strong> idea of<br />
entrenching Aboriginal peoples’ collective rights to self-government, those<br />
rights were being assailed by <strong>the</strong> individual rights claims of <strong>the</strong> Native<br />
Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC). Essentially, NWAC’s challenge<br />
was based on <strong>the</strong> claim that <strong>the</strong> male-dominated Aboriginal organizations <strong>and</strong><br />
B<strong>and</strong> Councils were not representing <strong>and</strong> would not in <strong>the</strong> future guarantee<br />
gender equality for Aboriginal women under self-government regimes. Hence<br />
<strong>the</strong>y dem<strong>and</strong>ed: first, independent funding for <strong>and</strong> representation at any <strong>and</strong> all<br />
constitutional negotiations regarding Aboriginal self-government; <strong>and</strong><br />
second, that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> be applied to Aboriginal governments so that<br />
Aboriginal women would be shielded from <strong>the</strong> potentially discriminatory<br />
effects of traditional forms of government. <strong>The</strong> latter concerns are examined<br />
after a discussion of <strong>the</strong> question of representation <strong>and</strong> funding.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Native Women’s Association’s dem<strong>and</strong> for independent representation<br />
<strong>and</strong> funding was to be <strong>the</strong> subject of two court cases. It must be noted, however,<br />
that NWAC had been allowed to participate in its own right at <strong>the</strong> 1983 <strong>and</strong><br />
1985 First Ministers’ Conferences on Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Matters. But<br />
in <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 round of talks, it was not. However, members of NWAC<br />
participated in <strong>the</strong> parallel processes of <strong>the</strong> national organizations. In fact,<br />
Sharon McIvor, a member of NWAC’s national executive, was one of <strong>the</strong><br />
Commissioners of <strong>the</strong> AFN’s First Nations Circle on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>. In<br />
addition, each of <strong>the</strong> national organizations included women’s workshops in<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir parallel processes. 71 <strong>The</strong> AFN <strong>and</strong> NCC had each allocated $130,000 of<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir grants from <strong>the</strong> Secretary of State to NWAC, money which had been<br />
earmarked in <strong>the</strong> Contribution Agreements with <strong>the</strong> federal government. A<br />
supplementary grant from Secretary of State brought NWAC’s funding to<br />
about 5% of what <strong>the</strong> Agreements had provided to each of <strong>the</strong> four national<br />
organizations, a total of some $10 million. 72 Moreover, <strong>the</strong> NCC had<br />
responded to NWAC’s lobbying by assigning some of its seats to NWAC<br />
representatives in <strong>the</strong> constitutional conferences, particularly <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal<br />
Conference of March 13-15, 1992.<br />
NWAC’s main concerns about independent funding <strong>and</strong> representation were<br />
not, however, satisfied by <strong>the</strong>se arrangements. In <strong>the</strong> spring of 1992, NWAC<br />
went to court to block federal grants to <strong>the</strong> four organizations. <strong>The</strong> Federal<br />
Court of Appeal substantially upheld NWAC’s claims in a judgement issued<br />
just a week before <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Consensus Report was signed. NWAC<br />
asked <strong>the</strong> court for an order prohibiting funding to <strong>the</strong> AFN, NCC, MNC <strong>and</strong><br />
ITC until <strong>the</strong> federal government provided equal funding to NWAC <strong>and</strong> an<br />
equal right of participation in <strong>the</strong> constitutional review process. <strong>The</strong> NCC,<br />
ITC, <strong>and</strong> MNC intervened in <strong>the</strong> case, challenging NWAC’s claim that it<br />
represented Aboriginal women. <strong>The</strong> NCC denied that it was a male or maledominated<br />
organization, noting that <strong>the</strong> Presidents of its Alberta, Yukon <strong>and</strong><br />
244
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
<strong>La</strong>brador constituents were women, <strong>and</strong> that it had been active in opposing<br />
gender discrimination under <strong>the</strong> Indian Act. <strong>The</strong> MNC <strong>and</strong> ITC each denied<br />
that NWAC represented Métis <strong>and</strong> Inuit women, <strong>the</strong> latter noting that Inuit<br />
women are represented by Pauktuutit, a national organization whose President<br />
is a member of <strong>the</strong> Board of Directors of ITC. In a unanimous decision,<br />
however, three judges found that:<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is ample evidence that <strong>the</strong>y individually [<strong>the</strong> Appellants, Gail<br />
Stacey-Moore <strong>and</strong> Sharon McIvor] <strong>and</strong> native women as a class<br />
remain doubly disadvantaged in Canadian society by reason of both<br />
race <strong>and</strong> sex <strong>and</strong> disadvantaged in at least some Aboriginal societies<br />
by reason of sex. <strong>The</strong> uncontradicted evidence is that <strong>the</strong>y are also<br />
seriously disadvantaged by reason of sex within <strong>the</strong> segment of<br />
Aboriginal society residing on or claiming <strong>the</strong> right to reside on<br />
Indian reservations....<strong>The</strong> evidence establishes that [NWAC] is a<br />
grassroots organization founded <strong>and</strong> led by Aboriginal women, at<br />
least Métis <strong>and</strong> non-status Indian women.... NWAC is a bona fide,<br />
established <strong>and</strong> recognized national voice of <strong>and</strong> for Aboriginal<br />
women. 73<br />
Significantly, <strong>the</strong> Court held that none of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r national organizations<br />
adequately represented Aboriginal women’s interests. Moreover, although <strong>the</strong><br />
AFN did not intervene in <strong>the</strong> case, <strong>the</strong> Court found that First Nations women’s<br />
interests were “likely to be injured if AFN’s position prevails”:<br />
...AFN, <strong>and</strong> its forerunner <strong>the</strong> National Indian Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood, has<br />
vigorously <strong>and</strong> consistently resisted <strong>the</strong> struggle of native women to<br />
rid <strong>the</strong>mselves of <strong>the</strong> gender inequality historically entrenched in <strong>the</strong><br />
Indian Act <strong>and</strong> has intervened in Parliamentary <strong>and</strong> legal proceedings<br />
to oppose those efforts. It opposed repeal of s.12(1)(b) of <strong>the</strong> Indian<br />
Act... <strong>and</strong> it opposed proclamation of <strong>the</strong> amendment to <strong>the</strong><br />
,<strong>Constitution</strong> Act, 1982 which added s. 35(4) [guaranteeing<br />
Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> treaty rights equally to male <strong>and</strong> female persons].” 74<br />
<strong>The</strong> court concluded that by inviting <strong>and</strong> funding <strong>the</strong> participation of <strong>the</strong> four<br />
national organizations, but excluding NWAC, “<strong>the</strong> Canadian government has<br />
accorded <strong>the</strong> advocates of male dominated Aboriginal self-governments a<br />
preferred position in <strong>the</strong> exercise of an expressive activity, <strong>the</strong> freedom of<br />
which is guaranteed to everyone by s. 2(b), <strong>and</strong> which is, by s. 28, guaranteed<br />
equally to men <strong>and</strong> women.” 75<br />
<strong>The</strong> court did not prohibit <strong>the</strong> government from funding <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
organizations, holding that it could not compel <strong>the</strong> government ei<strong>the</strong>r to fund<br />
NWAC equally or to invite its representatives to <strong>the</strong> bargaining table.<br />
None<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> finding that NWAC’s freedom of expression rights had been<br />
infringed should have been enough to prompt an invitation to <strong>the</strong> last round of<br />
negotiations in Charlottetown. However, no such invitation was forthcoming.<br />
NWAC subsequently petitioned <strong>the</strong> Federal Court Trial Division for an<br />
injunction prohibiting discussions between <strong>the</strong> governments <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> four<br />
national organizations on subjects dealt with in <strong>the</strong> Consensus Report until<br />
NWAC was accorded <strong>the</strong> right to participate in <strong>the</strong> talks. NWAC also asked for<br />
an injunction prohibiting <strong>the</strong> Referendum scheduled for October 26, 1992, on<br />
<strong>the</strong> grounds that it was “based on a nullity” given <strong>the</strong> Appeal Court’s finding of<br />
a violation of NWAC’s freedom of expression right in <strong>the</strong> earlier case. 76 After<br />
245
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
<strong>the</strong> AFN intervened, <strong>the</strong> Federal Court delayed hearing <strong>the</strong> case in order to give<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r groups time to prepare <strong>the</strong>ir arguments. 77 Though <strong>the</strong> decision was<br />
negative, in <strong>the</strong> end, events were to render <strong>the</strong> case moot as <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown<br />
Accord succumbed to defeat at <strong>the</strong> polls.<br />
Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>the</strong> play of events, however, <strong>the</strong> importance of such legal<br />
interventions cannot be underestimated. <strong>The</strong> court challenges exemplify<br />
precisely <strong>the</strong> sorts of concerns raised by Turpel <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs that <strong>the</strong> overall<br />
collective rights of Aboriginal peoples would be prostrated before non-<br />
Aboriginal courts deferring to <strong>the</strong> individual rights discourse in which <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rejoices. <strong>The</strong>y represented a challenge to <strong>the</strong> representivity of <strong>the</strong> four<br />
national organizations which in <strong>the</strong>ir various incarnations have been accepted<br />
<strong>and</strong> funded by <strong>the</strong> federal government for more than twenty years. As such,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y question <strong>the</strong> federal government’s right to decide which groups are<br />
representative of all of <strong>the</strong> various interests of Aboriginal peoples, as well as its<br />
right to select those whose interests are to be given voice.<br />
<strong>The</strong> question of voice is especially significant in light of <strong>the</strong> aftermath of <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord, when a number of First Nations (such as <strong>the</strong> Mohawks)<br />
claimed that <strong>the</strong> AFN did not represent <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> agreement reached by<br />
<strong>the</strong> national organizations did not meet <strong>the</strong> aspirations of all Aboriginal<br />
peoples. It is also significant in view of <strong>the</strong> controversy over <strong>the</strong> government’s<br />
ability to decide who is <strong>and</strong> who is not an Indian for <strong>the</strong> purposes of <strong>the</strong> Indian<br />
Act, a power which has historically robbed thous<strong>and</strong>s of Aboriginal people<br />
(mostly women) of <strong>the</strong>ir Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> treaty rights. This is a recurring <strong>the</strong>me<br />
in Aboriginal political discourse, since artificial legal classifications have<br />
determined access to rights <strong>and</strong> benefits. <strong>The</strong>y have also created political<br />
divisions between different categories of Aboriginal peoples who have as a<br />
consequence different material <strong>and</strong> political interests. Hence, one of <strong>the</strong> major<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> constitutional discourse has been that membership be<br />
determined by Aboriginal communities <strong>the</strong>mselves, ra<strong>the</strong>r than by <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
government with its vested interest in limiting <strong>the</strong> number of people who can<br />
claim status <strong>and</strong> entitlements under <strong>the</strong> Indian Act. <strong>The</strong> question of equity of<br />
access to Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> treaty rights for Métis <strong>and</strong> non-status Indians has<br />
been a major concern for <strong>the</strong> MNC <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> NCC. 78 Hence, <strong>the</strong>ir inclusion in<br />
<strong>the</strong> self-government provisions of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord represented a<br />
major coup for those organizations. Unhappily, however, <strong>the</strong> issue of equal<br />
access to Aboriginal self-government rights has been cited by some<br />
Aboriginal leaders as one of <strong>the</strong> main explanations for <strong>the</strong> overwhelming<br />
treaty <strong>and</strong> status Indian rejection of <strong>the</strong> Accord. 79<br />
As noted above, throughout <strong>the</strong> 1991-92 process, NWAC dem<strong>and</strong>ed that <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> be applied fully to Aboriginal governments. <strong>The</strong> concern was that<br />
Aboriginal women’s rights could be breached under self-governing regimes if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y did not have access to a set of fundamental rights enforceable by an<br />
external authority. <strong>The</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> was based on <strong>the</strong> history of discrimination<br />
against Aboriginal women by <strong>the</strong> Indian Act, as well as by <strong>the</strong> B<strong>and</strong> Councils it<br />
spawned. NWAC cited Section 12(1)(b) of <strong>the</strong> Act which, until its repeal in<br />
1985, had stripped Indian women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir children of <strong>the</strong>ir status <strong>and</strong> rights<br />
upon marriage to non-Indian men; <strong>the</strong> provision that made women members of<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir husb<strong>and</strong>s’ b<strong>and</strong>s if <strong>the</strong>y differed from <strong>the</strong>ir own <strong>and</strong> which imposed<br />
‘enfranchisement’ on <strong>the</strong>m if <strong>the</strong>ir husb<strong>and</strong>s became enfranchised; <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
1869 legislation which imposed <strong>the</strong> B<strong>and</strong> system with a European-style<br />
electoral system which permitted only males to vote. 80 <strong>The</strong>se provisions<br />
amounted to “<strong>the</strong> statutory banishment” 81 of thous<strong>and</strong>s of Aboriginal women<br />
246
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir children from <strong>the</strong>ir cultures. Taken toge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> provisions meant<br />
forced assimilation in <strong>the</strong> dominant society.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r, NWAC noted that when Jeanette <strong>La</strong>vell challenged s. 12(1)(b) of <strong>the</strong><br />
Indian Act in 1971, thirteen Aboriginal organizations (including <strong>the</strong> NIB <strong>and</strong><br />
various provincial <strong>and</strong> territorial organizations) funded by <strong>the</strong> Departments of<br />
Justice <strong>and</strong> Indian Affairs intervened to uphold <strong>the</strong> sexually discriminatory<br />
section. Finally, when s. 15 of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> made <strong>the</strong> section untenable, <strong>the</strong><br />
male-dominated Aboriginal organizations had opposed <strong>the</strong> introduction of<br />
Bill C-31, which abolished s. 12(1)(b). <strong>The</strong> Aboriginal organizations claimed<br />
that <strong>the</strong>ir opposition was not motivated by sexism, but ra<strong>the</strong>r by <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y were not provided with extra resources to meet <strong>the</strong> housing <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
material needs of those who would be reinstated. In addition, <strong>the</strong>y feared an<br />
influx of non-Aboriginal men married to Aboriginal women, who might<br />
attempt to gain control of <strong>the</strong>ir communities through <strong>the</strong> B<strong>and</strong> Councils. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
arguments notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing, by 1990, some 14,000 women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir 40,000<br />
children had regained <strong>the</strong>ir status, but only two percent of <strong>the</strong>m have been<br />
allowed to return to <strong>the</strong>ir reserves. 82 In view of this history, NWAC was not<br />
prepared to trust that male-dominated organizations would safeguard gender<br />
equality, especially if constitutional provisions exempted Aboriginal<br />
governments from <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. Indeed, although NWAC supported <strong>the</strong> idea of<br />
self-government, it was pointed out that:<br />
Some Aboriginal women have said no to self-government. Some of<br />
our women do not want more power, money <strong>and</strong> control in <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>s<br />
of men in our communities. It is asking a great deal to ask us as<br />
women to have confidence in <strong>the</strong> men in power in our communities.<br />
We do not want you to create Aboriginal governments with white<br />
powers <strong>and</strong> white philosophies in our communities. We do not want<br />
<strong>the</strong> western hierarchical power structure which you have given us.<br />
We do not want Chieftain overlords created by <strong>the</strong> Indian Act. 83<br />
<strong>The</strong> Native Women’s Association directly challenged <strong>the</strong> collective rights<br />
canonized by <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal organizations on <strong>the</strong> grounds that <strong>the</strong> individual<br />
rights protected by <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> are recognized as fundamental human rights in<br />
<strong>the</strong> U.N.’s Universal Declaration. NWAC recognized that <strong>the</strong>re was a clash<br />
between <strong>the</strong> collective rights of sovereign Aboriginal governments <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
individual rights of women. Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> had to be applied to<br />
<strong>the</strong>m because patriarchal laws of colonial origin had stripped women of <strong>the</strong><br />
equality <strong>the</strong>y had enjoyed in traditional societies, establishing “male privilege<br />
as <strong>the</strong> norm on reserve l<strong>and</strong>s.” 84<br />
<strong>The</strong> Native Women’s Association’s basic objections to <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown<br />
package were four-fold. First, NWAC objected to <strong>the</strong> Accord’s provision that<br />
Aboriginal governments were empowered to “safeguard <strong>and</strong> develop <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
languages, cultures, economies, identities, institutions, <strong>and</strong> traditions,” on <strong>the</strong><br />
grounds that it was not clear who would determine <strong>the</strong> meaning of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
elements. <strong>The</strong> gender equality provision in s. 35(4) had not been streng<strong>the</strong>ned<br />
to ensure that it applied explicitly to s. 35(1), so <strong>the</strong>re was potentially no<br />
protection against “discriminatory cultural practices emanating from <strong>the</strong><br />
current patriarchal Indian Act governments.” 85 Secondly, <strong>the</strong> Accord<br />
proposed to change <strong>the</strong> wording of democratic rights in Sections 3-5 of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> to exempt Aboriginal governments. Although this provision was<br />
ostensibly included in order to prevent non-Aboriginal people from claiming<br />
247
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
<strong>the</strong> right to vote in Aboriginal elections, <strong>the</strong>re was no provision that such<br />
governments would have to hold elections at all. Hence, NWAC argued that<br />
“Aboriginal citizens will have no democratic rights within Aboriginal<br />
communities under self-government.” 86 This might have meant, for example,<br />
that Aboriginal governments could restrict <strong>the</strong> franchise <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> rights to run<br />
for <strong>and</strong> hold public office to males only.<br />
Thirdly, NWAC opposed <strong>the</strong> extension of s. 33, <strong>the</strong> override clause, to<br />
Aboriginal governments. This would have meant that those governments<br />
could suspend fundamental freedoms (such as freedom of assembly, belief,<br />
expression, <strong>the</strong> press, religion <strong>and</strong> association), legal rights (such as “life,<br />
liberty, <strong>and</strong> security of <strong>the</strong> person,” <strong>and</strong> protection against “unreasonable<br />
search <strong>and</strong> seizure” <strong>and</strong> arbitrary detention <strong>and</strong> imprisonment), as well as s. 15<br />
equality rights. Aboriginal governments’ ability to restrict mobility rights was<br />
especially worrying in view of <strong>the</strong> problem of <strong>the</strong> Bill C-31 reinstatees, <strong>the</strong><br />
majority of whom have not been allowed to return to <strong>the</strong>ir reserves. In<br />
NWAC’s view, <strong>the</strong>se provisions would have put “awesome power...in <strong>the</strong><br />
h<strong>and</strong>s of Aboriginal patriarchs.” 87 Fourthly, NWAC was concerned that<br />
Aboriginal women would be forbidden to use <strong>the</strong> courts in <strong>the</strong> event of sex<br />
discrimination by Aboriginal governments. Hence, NWAC dem<strong>and</strong>ed not<br />
only that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> apply (<strong>and</strong> that s. 33 not be extended to Aboriginal<br />
governments), but that an unequivocal gender equality clause be included<br />
which was not vulnerable to suspension or subordination to any conflicting<br />
collective rights.<br />
By <strong>and</strong> large, <strong>the</strong> national organizations took <strong>the</strong> position that gender equality<br />
rights would be guaranteed by Sections 15, 28, <strong>and</strong> 35(4) of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. This<br />
position seemed to ignore <strong>the</strong> fact that s. 15 is subject to <strong>the</strong> override. In<br />
addition, <strong>the</strong>re is much uncertainty as to whe<strong>the</strong>r s. 35(4) of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
Act, 1982 only guarantees general Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> treaty rights equally to male<br />
<strong>and</strong> female persons, or whe<strong>the</strong>r it would actually apply to <strong>the</strong> actions taken by<br />
Aboriginal governments once instituted under negotiated agreements.<br />
Basically, <strong>the</strong> NCC took <strong>the</strong> position that “governments o<strong>the</strong>r than our own<br />
can never be trusted to end discrimination,” <strong>and</strong> that:<br />
...<strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> must not be used to suppress our collective titles <strong>and</strong><br />
jurisdictions by imposing non-Aboriginal concepts of property <strong>and</strong><br />
civil rights on us that could extinguish our status as founding peoples<br />
<strong>and</strong> nations...On <strong>the</strong> one h<strong>and</strong>, we must protect <strong>and</strong> promote <strong>the</strong><br />
suppressed rights of women...<strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs who have suffered so much<br />
under colonial rule <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Indian Act. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, we must<br />
never allow European ideas about culture...to suppress <strong>the</strong> reemergence<br />
of our traditional laws <strong>and</strong> governing systems. 88<br />
<strong>The</strong> NCC recommended that, instead of applying <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>the</strong> national<br />
Aboriginal organizations “should examine <strong>the</strong> idea of a manifesto of<br />
Aboriginal rights which would address <strong>the</strong> problem of how people would<br />
participate in <strong>the</strong>ir nation.” 89 This proposal brought little comfort to those<br />
concerned about potential incursions on <strong>the</strong> individual civil rights of<br />
Aboriginal people under First Nations governments dominated by men. In<br />
fact, only <strong>the</strong> ITC was willing to have <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> apply, <strong>and</strong> recommended<br />
including in <strong>the</strong> package an explicit “restriction on all governments—federal,<br />
provincial, <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal—preventing <strong>the</strong>m from passing laws or creating or<br />
248
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
recognizing rights in such a way that discriminates between men <strong>and</strong><br />
women.” 90<br />
It was AFN’s position, however, which caused <strong>the</strong> most concern to NWAC.<br />
<strong>The</strong> AFN had included a Women’s Assembly in its parallel process, <strong>and</strong> had<br />
received many submissions from women. However, in <strong>the</strong>ir report, <strong>the</strong> AFN<br />
Commissioners departed from <strong>the</strong>ir practice of recording submissions without<br />
evaluating <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> commented on <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong>y noted <strong>the</strong><br />
women’s argument that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> had been instrumental in forcing <strong>the</strong> repeal<br />
of s. 12(1)(b) <strong>and</strong> was thus required under self-government so that women who<br />
are discriminated against would have legal recourse against <strong>the</strong>ir oppressors.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y <strong>the</strong>n argued against this position, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir comments are worth quoting<br />
at length:<br />
If we may step outside <strong>the</strong> circle for a moment <strong>and</strong> present our own<br />
opinions, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is a well-intentioned document. And <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
absolutely no doubt that women have suffered from appalling<br />
treatment, in <strong>the</strong> past at <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> federal government, in <strong>the</strong><br />
present as victims of rapes, domestic violence <strong>and</strong> discrimination.<br />
But <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is no answer to women’s problems, for three reasons.<br />
First, [it is true that] a woman can go to court to force her council to<br />
award her membership, a house on reserve, <strong>and</strong> similar rights. But <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cannot protect a woman from violence; it cannot force her<br />
leaders to listen to her problems or help her; it cannot get her a job.<br />
<strong>The</strong> problems that <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is designed to overcome are not, on <strong>the</strong><br />
whole, <strong>the</strong> day-to-day problems that Aboriginal women confront. Job<br />
discrimination <strong>and</strong> pay inequity are low priority when <strong>the</strong>re are no<br />
jobs at all.<br />
Second, traditional Aboriginal society has no need of feminism, for<br />
<strong>the</strong> simple reason that women held <strong>the</strong> real power in<br />
it....Gr<strong>and</strong>mo<strong>the</strong>r makes <strong>the</strong> rules; Gr<strong>and</strong>fa<strong>the</strong>r enforces <strong>the</strong>m. If<br />
traditional values are re-established, Aboriginal women will have<br />
more power, more status, more respect than <strong>the</strong>ir feminist white<br />
sisters—who, since <strong>the</strong> passage of Bill C-31, have shown little<br />
interest in Aboriginal women’s problems. But <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> could<br />
easily st<strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> way of, or even prevent, <strong>the</strong> re-establishment of<br />
traditional values. Fundamentally, Eurocanadian culture values<br />
individualism; Aboriginal culture values <strong>the</strong> collective. Certainly<br />
individual rights must be protected, <strong>and</strong> past injustice must be ended.<br />
But if <strong>the</strong> right of <strong>the</strong> individual conflicts with <strong>the</strong> right of <strong>the</strong> group,<br />
our tradition is clear. <strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is not an Aboriginal document.<br />
Third, applying <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> means, in effect, that women would be<br />
asking <strong>the</strong> Canadian government to look after <strong>the</strong>ir interests,<br />
probably through litigation....Not only is litigation a non-Aboriginal<br />
way of solving disputes, but Canadian courts may or may not give<br />
<strong>the</strong>se women what <strong>the</strong>y want. In any event, real membership in <strong>the</strong><br />
community cannot be litigated; it can only be earned, <strong>and</strong> insisting on<br />
“my rights” is nei<strong>the</strong>r an Aboriginal custom nor a good way of<br />
winning a welcome from <strong>the</strong> community. 91<br />
249
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
In view of this statement, it is not difficult to see why NWAC took little<br />
comfort from <strong>the</strong> AFN’s position. Certainly, <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> is not designed to<br />
deal with <strong>the</strong> problems of inadequate resources <strong>and</strong> inter-personal violence to<br />
which <strong>the</strong> Commissioners refer. However, it is designed to deal with equity of<br />
access <strong>and</strong> non-discrimination on <strong>the</strong> basis of gender in <strong>the</strong> provision of<br />
services. Secondly, it is not at all clear that Aboriginal women would have<br />
more power, status <strong>and</strong> respect than “<strong>the</strong>ir feminist white sisters” under<br />
traditional governments. <strong>The</strong> problem here is what is to be defined as<br />
“traditional”? Are “traditional values” those prevalent in Aboriginal societies<br />
prior to contact with Europeans? If so, it must be noted that not all pre-contact<br />
Aboriginal societies were matriarchal or matrilineal. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, equality in<br />
most of those societies meant “equal but different.” 92 In o<strong>the</strong>r words, women<br />
<strong>and</strong> men had different socially constructed roles <strong>and</strong> responsibilities, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>se<br />
did not cover <strong>the</strong> range of possibilities in modern life. This could mean that<br />
Aboriginal women’s right to engage in certain occupations would be<br />
prescribed by “traditional” roles. Moreover, several hundred years of<br />
European occupation has resulted in cultural cross-fertilization, so that <strong>the</strong><br />
patriarchy imported into Aboriginal communities by church <strong>and</strong> state over <strong>the</strong><br />
centuries since contact may now be considered “traditional” <strong>and</strong> hence<br />
impregnable to gender equality claims.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Commissioners’ unequivocal statement that, in <strong>the</strong> event of a conflict<br />
between individual <strong>and</strong> collective rights, <strong>the</strong> latter are to prevail means that, in<br />
effect, Aboriginal women are to have fewer rights of Canadian citizenship than<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir non-Aboriginal counterparts. Instead, Aboriginal women’s rights are to<br />
be defined by <strong>the</strong>ir membership in enclave ethnic governments. Here,<br />
litigation is not to be an available option. <strong>The</strong>refore, once a collective decision<br />
is taken, <strong>the</strong> individual is to have no recourse to external authorities even if <strong>the</strong><br />
decision violates civil rights.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Commissioners’ answer to <strong>the</strong> problem of balancing individual <strong>and</strong><br />
collective rights was “to return to our tradition of respect for women, to heal<br />
<strong>the</strong> sources of <strong>the</strong> violence, <strong>and</strong> to educate <strong>the</strong> men who have adopted white<br />
attitudes towards women.” 93 However, this will be nei<strong>the</strong>r an easy nor a swift<br />
process, <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> meantime, gender equality (<strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r civil <strong>and</strong> political)<br />
rights are subject to suspension under Aboriginal governments.<br />
As a result of NWAC’s publicity campaign, <strong>the</strong> court challenges, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
support of groups such as <strong>the</strong> National Action Committee on <strong>the</strong> Status of<br />
Women, <strong>the</strong> final legal text of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord was amended to<br />
include <strong>the</strong> kind of guarantee that NWAC had been dem<strong>and</strong>ing. Section 35.7<br />
(replacing <strong>the</strong> old s. 35[4]) provided that “Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing any o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
provision of this Act, <strong>the</strong> rights of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal peoples of Canada referred to<br />
in this part are guaranteed equally to male <strong>and</strong> female persons.” Although it<br />
still did not specify that gender equality would apply to <strong>the</strong> legislative actions<br />
of Aboriginal governments, many of <strong>the</strong> provincial native women’s<br />
organizations began to formally endorse <strong>the</strong> Accord after <strong>the</strong> legal text was<br />
released. Thus, s. 35.7 represented a partial victory for NWAC, without whose<br />
efforts it would not have been included.<br />
Although <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord is now an historical artifact, it is possible<br />
that constitutional amendments to recognize <strong>the</strong> inherent right to selfgovernment<br />
will proceed separately. In this event, <strong>the</strong> problems of individual<br />
versus collective rights, <strong>and</strong> particularly gender equality, will resurface.<br />
Meanwhile, <strong>the</strong> tension between collective rights to self-government<br />
250
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
according to Aboriginal customs <strong>and</strong> values <strong>and</strong> individual rights to equal<br />
treatment in modern society has yet to be resolved in Aboriginal political<br />
discourse.<br />
Conclusion<br />
<strong>The</strong> foregoing discussion has demonstrated that Aboriginal constitutional<br />
discourse has made substantial strides over <strong>the</strong> past decade. Although all <strong>the</strong><br />
elements of <strong>the</strong> discourse examined in this paper were present in <strong>the</strong> early<br />
1980s, <strong>the</strong>y only came to fruition in <strong>the</strong> constitutional reform process which<br />
culminated in <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord. This was produced by <strong>the</strong> combined<br />
factors of Aboriginal peoples’ increased political influence following <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
pivotal role in derailing <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord in 1990 <strong>and</strong> escalating<br />
militancy in <strong>the</strong> slip-stream of <strong>the</strong> Oka crisis. It was also a result of broader<br />
forces in Canadian society (<strong>and</strong> internationally) which toge<strong>the</strong>r have induced<br />
an expansion of rights conceptions to legitimize notions of collective rights.<br />
<strong>The</strong> renewed Aboriginal constitutional discourse has had a number of farreaching<br />
effects. First, even though <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord floundered,<br />
Aboriginal organizations’ participation in all facets of <strong>the</strong> negotiations has<br />
changed Canadian constitutional discourse irreversibly. Political elites <strong>and</strong> a<br />
large proportion of <strong>the</strong> citizenry have been willing to acknowledge an inherent<br />
right to self-government. This is tantamount to an acceptance of Aboriginal<br />
sovereignty claims (albeit within <strong>the</strong> federation). Secondly, <strong>the</strong> “two nations”<br />
doctrine has been dealt a mortal wound. We can no longer conceive of Canada<br />
as consisting of two founding nations <strong>and</strong> cultures. This is bad news for<br />
Quebec, which has banked on <strong>the</strong> two nations idea as <strong>the</strong> basis of its claims for<br />
distinct society status. Nor can Aboriginal interests be excluded from future<br />
attempts at constitutional reform. Aboriginal organizations are almost<br />
guaranteed representation at future talks. <strong>The</strong>y cannot now be ignored with<br />
impunity.<br />
Thirdly, Aboriginal peoples have succeeded in legitimating <strong>the</strong>ir claims to<br />
collective rights as between <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r governments, though <strong>the</strong>y<br />
have not yet resolved <strong>the</strong> problem of balancing <strong>the</strong>m against individual rights<br />
within Aboriginal communities. <strong>The</strong> challenge posed by <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s<br />
Association exposed a serious weakness in <strong>the</strong> discourse. Although it is<br />
impossible to estimate how many of <strong>the</strong> 56% of Canadians who voted against<br />
<strong>the</strong> package were swayed by NWAC’s <strong>and</strong> NAC’s arguments on gender<br />
equality, <strong>the</strong>y doubtless had some impact. By flagging <strong>the</strong>se issues in public,<br />
NWAC may well have contributed to <strong>the</strong> Accord’s downfall. Hence,<br />
considerable refinement of <strong>the</strong> discourse is required if <strong>the</strong> issues of gender<br />
equality <strong>and</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights are not to derail future constitutional deals.<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> ante has been upped so that <strong>the</strong> inherent collective right <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provisions of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord will become <strong>the</strong> minimal<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s made in <strong>the</strong> next round of bargaining.<br />
It must be noted that <strong>the</strong>re was dissent among Aboriginal peoples over <strong>the</strong><br />
terms of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord, particularly within <strong>the</strong> AFN’s ranks.<br />
Treaty groups were concerned about <strong>the</strong> potential effects on treaty rights,<br />
while non-treaty groups were anxious about <strong>the</strong> “no new l<strong>and</strong>” provision. In<br />
<strong>the</strong> end, on <strong>the</strong> advice of <strong>the</strong> Mohawks, Elijah Harper, <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs who felt that<br />
Aboriginal people had not been given enough time to study <strong>the</strong> proposals,<br />
many Aboriginal people boycotted <strong>the</strong> referendum. But <strong>the</strong> most serious<br />
source of dissent were sovereigntist groups such as <strong>the</strong> Mohawks, who argued<br />
251
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
that <strong>the</strong>y did not need <strong>the</strong>ir rights recognized in <strong>the</strong> constitution of ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
country. 94 We can expect to see this sort of position adopted by many o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
groups in <strong>the</strong> coming years if increased militancy is <strong>the</strong> by-product of<br />
Charlottetown’s ruin.<br />
Now that <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord is dead, Aboriginal leaders such as Ron<br />
George <strong>and</strong> Ovide Mercredi have warned of <strong>the</strong> possibility of more Okas, more<br />
direct action, <strong>and</strong> more activity at <strong>the</strong> international level. <strong>The</strong> point will be to<br />
gain recognition by <strong>the</strong> international community of rights Aboriginal people<br />
have not been able to convert into constitutional trumps at home. Hence we can<br />
probably expect more assertions of sovereignty in <strong>the</strong> international sense by<br />
Canadian Aboriginal groups.<br />
Since <strong>the</strong> referendum, <strong>and</strong> in response to Aboriginal leaders’ profound<br />
disappointment, various non-Aboriginal leaders have suggested that <strong>the</strong> selfgovernment<br />
agenda can proceed separately. However, this is unlikely to<br />
happen in <strong>the</strong> immediate future for three reasons: first, many Aboriginal<br />
people have taken <strong>the</strong> fall of <strong>the</strong> Accord as yet ano<strong>the</strong>r rejection of Aboriginal<br />
people’s legitimate aspirations; second, only a constitutional amendment on<br />
<strong>the</strong> inherent right will do, but it is doubtful whe<strong>the</strong>r Quebec will agree to<br />
constitutional reform for Aboriginal peoples when its own agenda has also<br />
been rejected again; <strong>and</strong> third, even if all <strong>the</strong> provinces were willing to agree to<br />
substantially <strong>the</strong> same package, it is not clear that any major constitutional<br />
reform can now be legitimated without <strong>the</strong> stamp of public approval. If a<br />
referendum solely on Aboriginal rights had to be held, <strong>the</strong> risk would be that<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian public would say “no.” In that event, <strong>the</strong>re could be no doubt that<br />
voters were rejecting <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal package, unbuckled as it would be from<br />
<strong>the</strong> many o<strong>the</strong>r issues in <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord which could have<br />
explained its undoing.<br />
In conclusion, <strong>the</strong>refore, although it seems that Aboriginal constitutional<br />
discourse has established a new floor of minimal requirements for<br />
constitutional reform, <strong>the</strong> possibilities of constitutional change will depend on<br />
many factors. <strong>The</strong>se include <strong>the</strong> outcome of <strong>the</strong> next federal election <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
swerve of events in Quebec. Given <strong>the</strong> shifting s<strong>and</strong>s of constitutional<br />
discourse in <strong>the</strong> aftermath of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord, <strong>the</strong> prospects for <strong>the</strong><br />
near future look less than promising. However, it is to be hoped that <strong>the</strong><br />
Aboriginal peoples of <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn part of North America at least will be<br />
governing <strong>the</strong>mselves well before <strong>the</strong> six hundredth anniversary of Columbus’<br />
arrival. Mercifully, even in Canada, <strong>the</strong> pace of change is not that slow.<br />
Notes<br />
* I would like to thank Daiva Stasiulis <strong>and</strong> Sharon Su<strong>the</strong>rl<strong>and</strong> for <strong>the</strong>ir thoughtful<br />
commentaries on an earlier draft of this paper. Thanks are also due to <strong>the</strong> anonymous<br />
reviewers <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Editorial Board of this journal.<br />
1. Unfortunately, no figures are available for <strong>the</strong> Métis <strong>and</strong> non-status population, since<br />
Elections Canada was only able to collect specific data from reserve-based polling units.<br />
2. In this paper, <strong>the</strong> term “Aboriginal peoples” refers to <strong>the</strong> Indian, Inuit <strong>and</strong> Métis peoples of<br />
Canada. In current usage, <strong>the</strong> term “First Nations” denotes <strong>the</strong> 633 Aboriginal societies<br />
whose members are defined as “Indians” under <strong>the</strong> Indian Act. Some 311,000 status Indians<br />
reside on reserves <strong>and</strong> are politically represented at <strong>the</strong> national level by <strong>the</strong> Assembly of<br />
First Nations. Some 36,000 Inuit are represented by <strong>the</strong> Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, while <strong>the</strong><br />
Native Council of Canada claims to represent <strong>the</strong> interests of approximately 750,000 nonstatus<br />
Indians <strong>and</strong> Métis (those who are not registered under <strong>the</strong> Indian Act <strong>and</strong> do not qualify<br />
252
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
for its benefits). <strong>The</strong> Métis National Council represents <strong>the</strong> Métis of <strong>the</strong> Prairie provinces,<br />
who number around 5,000.<br />
3. For an Aboriginal response to <strong>the</strong> “termination” policy, see H. Cardinal, <strong>The</strong> Unjust Society:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Tragedy of Canada’s Indians (M.G. Hurtig, Edmonton, 1969). For an analysis of <strong>the</strong><br />
policy <strong>and</strong> its rationales, see S. Weaver, Making Canadian Indian Policy: <strong>the</strong> Hidden<br />
Agenda, 1968-70 (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1981).<br />
4. R. Gibbins, “Canadian Indian Policy: <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Trap,” Canadian Journal of Native<br />
Studies, Vol. IV, No. 1, 1984, p. 4.<br />
5. For example, a national Angus Reid poll of 1670 Canadian adults conducted between May<br />
26 <strong>and</strong> June 3, 1992, found “an evident reservoir of public goodwill...towards Aboriginal<br />
peoples.” See Canadians <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Peoples 1992: A Syndicated National Public<br />
Opinion Research Study (Angus Reid Group, 1992) p .9. Sixty percent of Canadians polled<br />
adhered to <strong>the</strong> view, ei<strong>the</strong>r that “Aboriginal peoples in Canada have a ‘historic, existing,<br />
inherent right to self-government,’ or that ‘<strong>the</strong> federal <strong>and</strong> provincial governments should<br />
allow Aboriginal peoples to govern <strong>the</strong>mselves’ (p. 15). Moreover, <strong>the</strong> study concluded that<br />
“residents of Canada are fully twice as likely to support than oppose <strong>the</strong> entrenchment of<br />
Aboriginal self-government in <strong>the</strong> Canadian constitution [65% to 31%]” (p. 16).<br />
6. Shaping Canada’s Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r: Proposals, (Ottawa, Supply <strong>and</strong> Services Canada,<br />
1991).<br />
7. Report of <strong>the</strong> Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada, (Queen’s Printer for Canada,<br />
Ottawa, February 28, 1992).<br />
8. “<strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Accord”, Draft Legal Text, October 9, 1992, p. 37.<br />
9. Ibid., p. 1.<br />
10. Ibid., pp. 37-38.<br />
11. For an analysis of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal self-government provisions of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord,<br />
see R. Jhappan, “Aboriginal Self-Government,” in Canadian Forum, Vol. LXXI, No. 813,<br />
October 1992, pp. 15-16.<br />
12. See J.R. Ponting, “Public Opinion on Aboriginal Peoples’ Issues in Canada,” Canadian<br />
Social Trends, No.11, Winter 1988, p. 9. Ponting’s data suggested that a core of 30% of adult<br />
non-native Canadians was supportive of special constitutional rights for Aboriginal peoples,<br />
though Canadians in general did not know or care much about natives <strong>and</strong> native issues.<br />
13. Canada, Indian Self-Government in Canada: Report of <strong>the</strong> Special Committee on Indian<br />
Self-Government, (<strong>the</strong> Penner Report), (Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, 1983), p. 44.<br />
14. Frances Abele, “Oddly Incongruent Cases: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Prospects of First Nations<br />
<strong>and</strong> Quebec,” (paper presented to <strong>the</strong> Annual Meeting of <strong>the</strong> Political Science Association,<br />
Charlottetown, May 31, 1992), p. 7.<br />
15. To <strong>the</strong> Source: First Nations Circle on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, Commissioners’ Report, (Assembly<br />
of First Nations, Ottawa, 1992), p. 74.<br />
16. Sparrow v. <strong>the</strong> Queen, SCC 20311, May 31st, 1990, at p. 3.<br />
17. Ibid., at p. 4.<br />
18. Ibid.<br />
19. Paul Chartr<strong>and</strong>, “<strong>The</strong> Claims of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: A Challenge to <strong>the</strong> Idea of<br />
Two Founding Nations,” (paper presented to a Conference on <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nation<br />
State, Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, June 5, 1992), p. 2.<br />
20. Menno Boldt, “Indian Leaders in Canada: Attitudes Towards Equality, Identity, <strong>and</strong><br />
Political Status,” (Ph.D <strong>the</strong>sis, Yale University, New Haven, 1973), p. 10.<br />
21. Dene Declaration, reprinted in full in Mel Watkins, <strong>The</strong> Dene Nation: <strong>the</strong> Colony Within,<br />
(University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1977), pp. 3-4.<br />
22. <strong>The</strong> Royal Proclamation of 1763 was Canada’s first constitutional document. It was<br />
primarily designed to lay down a policy for treating with Indians, <strong>and</strong> declared that Indian<br />
l<strong>and</strong>s could only be alienated to <strong>the</strong> Crown under specified conditions. It also reserved<br />
unceded territories to <strong>the</strong> exclusive use of <strong>the</strong> Indians.<br />
23. Fred Plain of <strong>the</strong> Nishnawbe-Aski Nation outlined <strong>the</strong> claim to nationhood in international<br />
terms: “<strong>The</strong> criteria for recognition as a nation are as follows: that <strong>the</strong> people have a<br />
permanent population...a defined territory...a government...[<strong>and</strong>] <strong>the</strong> ability to enter into<br />
relations with o<strong>the</strong>r states. We can assure Canada <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> international community that...we<br />
can define ourselves as a nation....<strong>The</strong> Royal Proclamation of 1763 refers to our sovereignty;<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> government of Canada approached us as a nation to enter into treaty with <strong>the</strong>m.” See<br />
253
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
Fred Plain, “A Treatise on <strong>the</strong> Rights of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal Peoples of <strong>the</strong> Continent of North<br />
America,” in M. Boldt <strong>and</strong> J.A. Long, <strong>The</strong> Quest for Justice, (University of Toronto Press,<br />
Toronto, 1985), p. 31.<br />
24. Chartr<strong>and</strong>, op. cit., p. 21.<br />
25. John E. Moss, “Native Proposals for <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform”, Journal of Canadian Studies,<br />
Vol. 15, No. 4, Winter 1980-81, pp. 86-87.<br />
26. Ibid., pp. 87-88.<br />
27. Ibid., p. 87.<br />
28. To <strong>the</strong> Source: <strong>The</strong> First Nations Circle on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, Commissioners Report, op. cit.,<br />
pp. 13-15.<br />
29. <strong>Constitution</strong>al Position Paper—Inuit in Canada: Striving for Equality, (Inuit Tapirisat of<br />
Canada, Ottawa, February 6, 1992), p. 6.<br />
30. In 1959, <strong>the</strong> Six Nations reserve near Brantford, Ontario, “ceded” from Canada <strong>and</strong> sent a<br />
Declaration of Independence to <strong>the</strong> Queen, <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister, <strong>the</strong> President of <strong>the</strong> United<br />
States <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> United Nations. In 1969, <strong>the</strong> Six Nations responded to <strong>the</strong> White Paper, which<br />
proposed to terminate <strong>the</strong> Indian Act <strong>and</strong> special status for Indians, by declaring <strong>the</strong> reserve a<br />
sovereign state.<br />
31. First Ministers Conference on Aboriginal Matters, March 8-9, 1984, unofficial verbatim<br />
transcript, pp. 256-257.<br />
32. Chartr<strong>and</strong>, op. cit., pp. 36-37.<br />
33. Andre Picard, “Mercredi warns of native independence,” Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, October 22, 1991,<br />
p. A2.<br />
34. To <strong>the</strong> Source: <strong>The</strong> First Nations Circle on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, Commissioners Report, op. cit.,<br />
pp. 15-16.<br />
35. <strong>Constitution</strong>al Position Paper—Inuit in Canada: Striving for Equality, op. cit., p. 3.<br />
36. <strong>The</strong> First Peoples <strong>Constitution</strong>al Congress: Parallel Process on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Report,<br />
0(Native Council of Canada, Ottawa, June 1992), p. 33.<br />
37. Assembly of First Nations, Native Council of Canada, Metis National Council, Inuit<br />
Committee on National Issues, “Joint Aboriginal Proposal for Self-Government,” First<br />
Ministers’ Conferences on Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Matters, Ottawa, March 27, 1987,<br />
CICS Document 800-23/030.<br />
38. Quoted in Rudy Platiel, “Inherent sovereignty, unity process linked”, Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail,<br />
October 22, 1991, p. A7.<br />
39. Ibid.<br />
40. Aboriginal peoples’ international lobbying efforts at <strong>the</strong> United Nations, <strong>the</strong> European<br />
Community, <strong>the</strong> Organization of American States <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r bodies are analyzed in R.<br />
Jhappan, “A Global Community?: Supranational Strategies of Canada’s Aboriginal<br />
Peoples,” Journal of Indigenous Studies, Spring 1993, forthcoming.<br />
41. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Chronicles: First Peoples <strong>Constitution</strong>al Congress, March 27-30, 1992,<br />
(Native Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1992), p. 4.<br />
42. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, <strong>The</strong> Right of Aboriginal Self-Government <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>: A Commentary, (February 13, 1992), p. 23.<br />
43. See Rudy Platiel, “Native rights inherent, panel says,” Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, February 14, 1992, p.<br />
A5.<br />
44. Report of <strong>the</strong> Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada, (Supply <strong>and</strong> Services Canada,<br />
Ottawa, February 28, 1992), p. 29.<br />
45. Chartr<strong>and</strong>, op. cit., p. 33.<br />
46. Statement by <strong>the</strong> NIB, quoted in <strong>The</strong> Task Force on Canadian Unity, A Time to Speak: <strong>the</strong><br />
Views of <strong>the</strong> Public, (Ottawa, Supply <strong>and</strong> Services, 1979), p. 30.<br />
47. Inuit in Canada: Striving for Equality, (<strong>Constitution</strong>al Position Paper, Inuit Tapirisat of<br />
Canada, Ottawa, February 6, 1992), p. 3.<br />
48. Russell Roundpoint of Akwesasne, quoted in To <strong>the</strong> Source: First Nations Circle on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>, Commissioners’ Report, (Assembly of First Nations, Ottawa, 1992), p. 27.<br />
49. Backgrounder: Executive Task Force on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> of Canada, (Native Council of<br />
Canada, January 28, 1992), p. 5.<br />
50. To <strong>the</strong> Source: First Nations Circle on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, op. cit., p. 74.<br />
51. Ibid., p.4.<br />
254
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
52. Paul Chartr<strong>and</strong>, “<strong>The</strong> Claims of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: A Challenge to <strong>the</strong> Idea of<br />
Two Founding Nations,” (paper presented to a Conference on “<strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nation<br />
State,” Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, June 5, 1992), p. 24.<br />
53. For example, Moss cites ITC <strong>and</strong> NCC claims that <strong>the</strong>y are not just elements of Canada’s<br />
ethnic minorities, but ra<strong>the</strong>r are “distinct national groups.” See John E. Moss, “Native<br />
Proposals for <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform,” Journal of Canadian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4, Winter<br />
1980-81, p. 86.<br />
54. Jack Aubry, “Mercredi shows consistency in distinct society campaign,” Ottawa Citizen,<br />
February 13, 1992, p. A3.<br />
55. To <strong>the</strong> Source: First Nations Circle on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, op. cit., pp. 37-38.<br />
56. Quoted in Susan Delacourt, “Natives want own distinct society,” Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, February<br />
11, 1992, p. A6.<br />
57. Inuit in Canada: Striving for Equality, op. cit., pp. 6-7.<br />
58. <strong>The</strong> First Peoples <strong>Constitution</strong>al Congress: Parallel Process on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Report,<br />
(Native Council of Canada, Ottawa, June 1992), p. 18.<br />
59. Backgrounder: Executive Task Force on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> of Canada, op. cit., p. 5.<br />
60. See Roy MacGregor, “Natives dem<strong>and</strong> meeting: First Nations Chief takes off gloves at<br />
Toronto conference,” Ottawa Citizen, February 10, 1992, pp. A1-A2.<br />
61. Quoted in Rheal Seguin, “Quebec right to self-rule disputed by Mercredi”, <strong>The</strong> Globe <strong>and</strong><br />
Mail, February 12, 1992, p. A4.<br />
62. Ibid.<br />
63. See Joan Bryden, “Quebec urged back to table”, <strong>The</strong> Ottawa Citizen, March 16, 1992, p.A 1.<br />
64. Mary Ellen Turpel, “Aboriginal Peoples <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>: Interpretive Monopolies,<br />
Cultural Differences,” in R. Devlin, Ed., Canadian Perspectives on Legal <strong>The</strong>ory, (Emond<br />
Montgomery Publications, Toronto, 1991), p. 507<br />
65. Ibid., pp. 517-520, passim.<br />
66. Canada, Department of Indian Affairs <strong>and</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Development, Statement of <strong>the</strong><br />
Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969, (Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, 1969), p. 5.<br />
67. See, for example, Andrews v. <strong>La</strong>w Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143.<br />
68. Quoted in Turpel, op. cit., p. 524.<br />
69. Ibid.<br />
70. Ibid., pp. 524-525.<br />
71. <strong>The</strong>re is some dispute about this. Gail Stacey-Moore of NWAC claimed that <strong>the</strong> AFN had<br />
decided to set aside $228,000 for a women’s conference as part of <strong>the</strong> parallel process, but<br />
that <strong>the</strong> money was never received <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> conference never held. See NWAC v. <strong>the</strong> Queen,<br />
op. cit., Exhibit F, Affidavit of Gail Stacey-Moore, September 16, 1992, at p. 22.<br />
72. NWAC v. <strong>the</strong> Queen , Federal Court of Appeal, Reasons for Judgement, August 20, 1992, at<br />
p. 4.<br />
73. Ibid., at p. 2.<br />
74. Ibid., at p. 9.<br />
75. Ibid., at p. 15.<br />
76. IN RE <strong>the</strong> Referendum Act: NWAC v. <strong>the</strong> Queen, <strong>the</strong> Right Honourable Brian Mulroney <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Right Honourable Joe Clark, Statement of Claim, Federal Court of Canada, September<br />
15, 1992, at pp. 9-10.<br />
77. “Judge delays attempt by native women to halt referendum,” Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, September 23,<br />
1992, p. A8.<br />
78. For discussions of <strong>the</strong> consequences of what Chartr<strong>and</strong> has called “outside-naming,” see To<br />
<strong>the</strong> Source: First Nations Circle on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, op. cit., pp. 21, 35, 36, <strong>and</strong> 52; <strong>and</strong><br />
various NCC documents, including Parallel Process on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Report, (NCC,<br />
Ottawa, June 1992), pp. 25-28; Backgrounder: Executive Task Force on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> of<br />
Canada, op. cit., pp. 17-18; Ron George, Becoming Visible: Urban Self-Government in <strong>the</strong><br />
1990’s, (NCC, Ottawa, July 1992); <strong>and</strong> Jill Wherrett <strong>and</strong> Douglas Brown, Self-Government<br />
for Aboriginal Peoples Living in Urban Areas: A Discussion Paper Prepared for <strong>the</strong> Native<br />
Council of Canada, (Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University,<br />
Kingston, April 1992).<br />
79. Ron George, interviewed in Ottawa, February 10, 1993. Treaty Indians <strong>and</strong> b<strong>and</strong> council<br />
leaders were apparently concerned about a fur<strong>the</strong>r influx of non-status Indians to <strong>the</strong> reserves<br />
if <strong>the</strong> latter were granted equal access.<br />
255
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
80. NWAC v. <strong>the</strong> Queen, op. cit., Exhibit F, Affidavit of Gail Stacey-Moore, September 16,<br />
1992, at p. 6. Kathleen Jamieson traces <strong>the</strong> development of gender-biased legislation <strong>and</strong><br />
Aboriginal women’s struggle against it in “Sex Discrimination <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Indian Act,” in J.R.<br />
Ponting, Ed., Arduous Journey: Canadian Indians <strong>and</strong> Decolonization, (McClell<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
Stewart, Toronto, 1986), pp.112-136.<br />
81. This term was used by Justice <strong>La</strong>skin in a dissenting opinion in <strong>La</strong>vell v. A.G. Canada,<br />
[1974] S.C.R. 1349, at p. 1386.<br />
82. “Memor<strong>and</strong>um to Premiers, Government Leaders of NWT <strong>and</strong> Yukon Re Gender Equality,”<br />
(NWAC, Ottawa, September 14, 1992), p. 2.<br />
83. “Statement on <strong>the</strong> Canada Package,” (NWAC, Ottawa, 1991), pp. 7-8.<br />
84. Ibid., pp. 10-11.<br />
85. Teressa Nahanee, “Native Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Package: Plain <strong>La</strong>nguage<br />
Version,” (prepared for <strong>the</strong> NWAC Board Meeting, Ottawa, Sept. 12-13, 1992), p. 2.<br />
86. Ibid., p. 4.<br />
87. “Statement on <strong>the</strong> Canada Package,” op. cit., p. 12.<br />
88. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Chronicles, op. cit. p. 5.<br />
89. Parallel Process on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Report, op. cit., p. 41.<br />
90. Discussion Paper on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, Draft # 2, (ITC, Ottawa, May 6, 1992), p. 5.<br />
91. To <strong>the</strong> Source: First Nations Circle on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, op. cit., pp. 62-63.<br />
92. Ibid., p. 59.<br />
93. Ibid., p. 64.<br />
94. Rheal Seguin, “Quebec chiefs suspicious of accord,” Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail, September 26, 1992,<br />
p. A5.<br />
Bibliography<br />
Abele, Frances. “Oddly Incongruent Cases: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Prospects of First Nations <strong>and</strong><br />
Quebec.” Paper presented to <strong>the</strong> Annual Meeting of <strong>the</strong> Political Science Association,<br />
Charlottetown, May 31, 1992.<br />
Angus Reid Group. Canadians <strong>and</strong> Aboriginal Peoples 1992: A Syndicated National Public<br />
Opinion Research Study. Vancouver: 1992.<br />
Assembly of First Nations. To <strong>the</strong> Source: First Nations Circle on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>,<br />
Commissioners’ Report. Ottawa: 1992.<br />
_____Native Council of Canada, Metis National Council, Inuit Committee on National Issues.<br />
“Joint Aboriginal Proposal for Self-Government.” Ottawa: First Ministers’ Conferences on<br />
Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Matters, March 27, 1987, CICS Document 800-23/030.<br />
Boldt, Menno. “Indian Leaders in Canada: Attitudes Towards Equality, Identity, <strong>and</strong> Political<br />
Status.” Ph.D <strong>the</strong>sis. New Haven: Yale University, 1973.<br />
Canada. <strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Accord: Draft Legal Text. Ottawa: October 9, 1992.<br />
_____Shaping Canada’s Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r: Proposals. Ottawa: Supply <strong>and</strong> Services Canada,<br />
1991.<br />
_____Report of <strong>the</strong> Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer,<br />
February 28, 1992.<br />
_____First Ministers Conference on Aboriginal Matters: unofficial verbatim transcript. Ottawa:<br />
Queen’s Printer, March 8-9, 1984.<br />
_____Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, <strong>The</strong> Right of Aboriginal Self-Government <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>: A Commentary. Ottawa: February 13, 1992.<br />
_____Report of <strong>the</strong> Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada. Ottawa: Supply <strong>and</strong> Services<br />
Canada, February 28, 1992.<br />
_____Indian Self-Government in Canada: Report of <strong>the</strong> Special Committee on Indian Self-<br />
Government, (<strong>the</strong> Penner Report). Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1983.<br />
_____<strong>The</strong> Task Force on Canadian Unity, A Time to Speak: <strong>the</strong> Views of <strong>the</strong> Public. Ottawa:<br />
Supply <strong>and</strong> Services, 1979.<br />
_____Statement of <strong>the</strong> Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969. Ottawa: Queen’s<br />
Printer,1969.<br />
Cardinal, Harold. <strong>The</strong> Unjust Society: <strong>the</strong> Tragedy of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton: M.G.<br />
Hurtig,1969.<br />
Chartr<strong>and</strong>, Paul. “<strong>The</strong> Claims of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: A Challenge to <strong>the</strong> Idea of Two<br />
Founding Nations.” Paper presented to a Conference on <strong>Federalism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nation State,<br />
Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, June 5, 1992.<br />
Gibbins, Roger. “Canadian Indian Policy: <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Trap.” Canadian Journal of Native<br />
Studies IV, 1, 1984:1-9.<br />
256
Inherency, Three Nations <strong>and</strong> Collective Rights:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Evolution of Aboriginal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Discourse<br />
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. <strong>Constitution</strong>al Position Paper—Inuit in Canada:<br />
Striving for Equality. Ottawa: February 6, 1992.<br />
Discussion Paper on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, Draft # 2. Ottawa: May 6, 1992.<br />
Jamieson, Kathleen. “Sex Discrimination <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Indian Act.” In Arduous Journey: Canadian<br />
Indians <strong>and</strong> Decolonization, pp. 112-136. Edited by J.R. Ponting. Toronto: McClell<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
Stewart, 1986.<br />
Jhappan, R. “A Global Community?: Supranational Strategies of Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples.”<br />
Journal of Indigenous Studies. April 1993, forthcoming.<br />
“Aboriginal Self-Government.” Canadian Forum, LXXI, 813, October 1992, pp. 15-16.<br />
Moss, John E. “Native Proposals for <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform.” Journal ofCanadian Studies. 15, 4,<br />
Winter 1980-81: 85-92.<br />
Native Council of Canada. Backgrounder: Executive Task Force on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> of Canada.<br />
Ottawa: January 28, 1992.<br />
_____Becoming Visible: Urban Self-Government in <strong>the</strong> 1990’s. By Ron George. Ottawa: July<br />
1992.<br />
_____<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Chronicles: First Peoples <strong>Constitution</strong>al Congress, March 27-30, 1992.<br />
Ottawa: 1992.<br />
_____<strong>The</strong> First Peoples <strong>Constitution</strong>al Congress: Parallel Process on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Report.<br />
Ottawa: June 1992.<br />
Native Women’s Association of Canada. “Memor<strong>and</strong>um to Premiers, Government Leaders of<br />
NWT <strong>and</strong> Yukon Re Gender Equality.” Ottawa: September 14, 1992.<br />
_____“Native Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Package: Plain <strong>La</strong>nguage Version.” Prepared by<br />
Teressa Nahanee for <strong>the</strong> NWAC Board Meeting, Ottawa, Sept. 12-13, 1992.<br />
_____“Statement on <strong>the</strong> Canada Package”. Ottawa: 1991.<br />
Plain, Fred. “A Treatise on <strong>the</strong> Rights of <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal Peoples of <strong>the</strong> Continent of North<br />
America.” In <strong>The</strong> Quest for Justice, pp. 31-40. Edited by M. Boldt <strong>and</strong> J.A. Long. Toronto:<br />
University of Toronto Press, 1985.<br />
Ponting, J.R. “Public Opinion on Aboriginal Peoples’ Issues in Canada.” Canadian Social Trends.<br />
11, Winter 1988: 9-17.<br />
Turpel, Mary Ellen. “Aboriginal Peoples <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>: Interpretive Monopolies,<br />
Cultural Differences.” In Canadian Perspectives on Legal <strong>The</strong>ory, pp. 503-538. Edited by<br />
R. Devlin. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 1991.<br />
Watkins, Mel. <strong>The</strong> Dene Nation: <strong>the</strong> Colony Within. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977.<br />
Weaver, Sally. Making Canadian Indian Policy: <strong>the</strong> Hidden Agenda, 1968-70. Toronto:<br />
University of Toronto Press,1981.<br />
Wherrett, Jill, <strong>and</strong> Brown, Douglas. “Self-Government for Aboriginal Peoples Living in Urban<br />
Areas: A Discussion Paper Prepared for <strong>the</strong> Native Council of Canada.” Kingston: Institute<br />
of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University, April 1992.<br />
Legal Cases Cited<br />
Andrews v. <strong>La</strong>w Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143.<br />
IN RE <strong>the</strong> Referendum Act: NWAC v. <strong>the</strong> Queen, <strong>the</strong> Right Honourable Brian Mulroney <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Right Honourable Joe Clark, Statement of Claim, Federal Court of Canada, September 15,<br />
1992.<br />
<strong>La</strong>vell v. A.G. Canada , [1974] S.C.R. 1349<br />
NWAC v. <strong>the</strong> Queen , Federal Court of Appeal, Reasons for Judgement, August 20, 1992.<br />
Sparrow v. <strong>the</strong> Queen, SCC 20311, May 31st, 1990.<br />
257
Jill Vickers<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement And a<br />
Changing <strong>Constitution</strong>al Order 1<br />
Abstract<br />
In this paper, I examine a decade of women’s constitutional activism focusing<br />
on debates about <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Boyer Committee on Equality Rights, <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Charlottetown Accords. I provide a typology of a<br />
women’s movement composed of two majoritarian elements (English-<br />
Canadian <strong>and</strong> Quebec francophone) <strong>and</strong> a number of minority elements,<br />
including francophone women outside of Quebec, First Nations women, racial<br />
minority women <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, such as lesbians <strong>and</strong> women with disabilities, who<br />
sought to present distinct constitutional views. <strong>The</strong> paper explores <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional concerns Canadian women had in common <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> different<br />
<strong>and</strong> sometimes conflicting concerns <strong>the</strong>y had because of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
majority/minority cultural locations. In general, I offer tools of gender<br />
analysis to help observers underst<strong>and</strong> women’s new <strong>and</strong> often disruptive <strong>and</strong><br />
surprising entrance into Canadian constitutional politics as women.<br />
Résumé<br />
Axé sur les délibérations concernant la <strong>Charte</strong>, le Comité Boyer sur l’égalité,<br />
l’Accord du lac Meech et l’Accord de Charlottetown, cet article examine les<br />
dix dernières années de militantisme effectué par les femmes eu égard à la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne. Il fournit également une typologie du mouvement<br />
des femmes : deux éléments majoritaires (les Canadiennes anglaises et les<br />
Québécoises francophones) et quelques éléments minoritaires (les<br />
Francophones hors Québec, les femmes des Premières nations, les femmes<br />
provenant des minorités ethniques, les lesbiennes et les h<strong>and</strong>icapées).Les<br />
membres de ces éléments ont essayé de présenter une vision de la <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
qui leur étaient propres. L’auteure explore les questions constitutionnelles<br />
qu’ont en commun les Canadiennes ainsi que les questions divergentes voire<br />
contradictoires dues à leur emplacement culturel de majoritaires/<br />
minoritaires.Cet article servira d’outil à une analyse féministe et aidera le<br />
lecteur ou la lectrice à comprendre l’entrée nouvelle, surprenante et, parfois,<br />
perturbatrice des femmes en tant que femmes dans la politique<br />
constitutionnelle canadienne.<br />
In 1993, <strong>the</strong> Canadian women’s movement marks a century of continuous<br />
organization. Yet it is only in <strong>the</strong> past decade that Canadian women, acting<br />
through more than 3,000 groups organized to advance women’s status <strong>and</strong><br />
condition, have engaged in constitutional politics. Initially, many women,<br />
especially in English Canada, approached constitutional politics with<br />
reluctance. That reluctance overcome, women have created a collective<br />
presence in <strong>the</strong> constitutional arena, acknowledged by <strong>the</strong> (mostly male)<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
politicians, academics <strong>and</strong> media gurus who consider constitutional change<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir purview. Progressive women have insisted on <strong>the</strong>ir right to be heard as<br />
women who need autonomous voices in <strong>the</strong> process because women may be<br />
differently affected than men by constitutional change. And yet, women have<br />
not always agreed on <strong>the</strong> substance of <strong>the</strong> constitutional arrangements desired<br />
despite frequent agreement on <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> changes needed to improve<br />
women’s status <strong>and</strong> condition. It is this puzzle I will address in this paper.<br />
This process of women relating to <strong>the</strong> constitutional order as women; as<br />
citizens differentiated from men by <strong>the</strong>ir sex/gender characteristics, is little<br />
understood. In liberal <strong>the</strong>ory, it is assumed that <strong>the</strong> constitutional citizen is an<br />
undifferentiated abstraction. 2 In Canadian practice, <strong>the</strong> constitutional citizen<br />
is characterized by language, religion <strong>and</strong> place of residence. Only with <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms was <strong>the</strong> process begun of recognizing o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
identities <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> interests organized around <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
My study of a decade of women’s constitutional activism shows that women<br />
were drawn into constitutional politics because <strong>the</strong>ir “unique reproductive<br />
roles created a significantly different relationship between women <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> state than...between men <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> state,” (Vickers, 1992b: 19; Young,<br />
1989, 1990; Pateman; 1988). This led women to create a widely shared agenda<br />
for change. Also widely shared, was a belief in <strong>the</strong> appropriateness of state<br />
action in achieving this agenda (Vickers, 1992a; Vickers, Rankin <strong>and</strong> Appelle,<br />
1993). Thus, women’s increased involvement in constitutional politics came<br />
partly from an evolving awareness that changes in <strong>the</strong> constitutional order,<br />
including in <strong>the</strong> division of powers, mattered to <strong>the</strong>m as women. Despite <strong>the</strong><br />
shared agenda, however, <strong>and</strong> a common pro-statism, <strong>the</strong> various elements of<br />
<strong>the</strong> women’s movement often have differed sharply on strategic issues such as<br />
which level of government should be charged with achieving particular<br />
changes for women.<br />
In this text, I will not explore in any detail my underlying assumption that<br />
constitutional politics matters to women because <strong>the</strong>y are differently related to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian state than <strong>the</strong>ir menfolk. In this assertion, I follow analyses<br />
offered by Carol Pateman (1986; 1988), Susan Okin (1978; 1986), Linda<br />
<strong>La</strong>nge (1979) <strong>and</strong> Iris Marion Young (1990). As Young notes, however, <strong>the</strong><br />
ideal of impartiality, whe<strong>the</strong>r in <strong>the</strong> constitutional relationship of citizens to<br />
states or in our <strong>the</strong>ories of justice, denies <strong>the</strong> political significance of difference<br />
(ch. 4). It is not my view, however, that difference always has political or<br />
constitutional implications in some eternal, essential sense, although this is an<br />
issue on which feminists often disagree. <strong>The</strong> historically situated organization<br />
of sex/gender, however, underlies <strong>the</strong> conflict among <strong>the</strong> different parts of <strong>the</strong><br />
women’s movement as <strong>the</strong>y engage in constitutional politics (Vickers, 1993).<br />
While <strong>the</strong> women’s movement is not monolithic, <strong>the</strong>re actually have been few<br />
major differences in <strong>the</strong> agendas for change of its two majoritarian str<strong>and</strong>s, 3<br />
<strong>the</strong> English-Canadian <strong>and</strong> Quebec francophone str<strong>and</strong>s. Issues related to<br />
reproduction, sexuality, health care, childcare, economic well-being <strong>and</strong><br />
participation in decision making have dominated both agendas (Dumont,<br />
1991; 1992; Vickers, Rankin <strong>and</strong> Appelle, 1993). Minority elements within<br />
<strong>the</strong> movement, including ethnic <strong>and</strong> racial minorities, aboriginal women,<br />
women with disabilities, lesbians <strong>and</strong> immigrant women, however, have<br />
challenged some aspects of <strong>the</strong>se majoritarian agendas. Although <strong>the</strong>se<br />
differences are important (indeed, <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong> very stuff of “politics as if<br />
262
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
women mattered”), in this text I will focus on <strong>the</strong> differences of strategy <strong>and</strong><br />
philosophy which underlie women’s positions in constitutional politics.<br />
Elements of <strong>the</strong> Canadian women’s movement have differed fundamentally<br />
on <strong>the</strong> relative importance of individual <strong>and</strong> collective rights <strong>and</strong> on <strong>the</strong> value<br />
of a centralized or decentralized federal system for <strong>the</strong> achievement of feminist<br />
goals. (Indeed, some Quebec <strong>and</strong> First Nations women reject federalism<br />
completely.) <strong>The</strong>y have also differed about <strong>the</strong> value of a strategy of legal <strong>and</strong><br />
constitutional protection. In exploring <strong>the</strong>se positions, I will outline how<br />
women, who are differently situated as part of a majority or minority culture,<br />
for example, could be affected differently by <strong>and</strong>, hence, have different views<br />
on constitutional change than women with whom <strong>the</strong>y shared identical views<br />
on <strong>the</strong> substance of <strong>the</strong> feminist agenda.<br />
In summary, <strong>the</strong>n, my framework involves three basic assumptions:<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> constitutional citizen must be viewed as a sexed <strong>and</strong><br />
gendered citizen, <strong>and</strong> women understood as differently related to<br />
<strong>the</strong> state(s) <strong>the</strong> constitution regulates;<br />
2. Women may differ on <strong>the</strong> substance of <strong>the</strong> changes desired<br />
because <strong>the</strong>y are differently situated, especially as members of<br />
majority or minority cultures;<br />
3. Women who hold identical views on <strong>the</strong> substance of <strong>the</strong><br />
movement’s agenda for change may none<strong>the</strong>less hold different<br />
philosophical <strong>and</strong> strategic views concerning how <strong>the</strong> agenda<br />
can best be realized. It is this third proposition on which I will<br />
focus in this paper.<br />
In preparing this text, I have based my analysis primarily on <strong>the</strong> feminist<br />
literature about constitutional politics. 4 This literature consists of three parts:<br />
<strong>the</strong> popular feminist press, briefs submitted by women’s groups to committees<br />
<strong>and</strong> commissions <strong>and</strong> writings by feminist lawyers <strong>and</strong> academics. I have also<br />
relied on my own experiences as an observing participant in <strong>the</strong> process. 5 <strong>The</strong><br />
text which follows is divided into three sections: first, I outline <strong>the</strong> two<br />
majoritarian elements of <strong>the</strong> movement <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> racial, ethnic <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
minority elements which operate in relation to <strong>the</strong>m. In <strong>the</strong> second section, I<br />
outline <strong>the</strong> issues which have motivated Canadian women’s constitutional<br />
politics. In <strong>the</strong> third section, I explore <strong>the</strong>se issues as <strong>the</strong>y evolved over <strong>the</strong><br />
decade from <strong>the</strong> patriation crisis to <strong>the</strong> defeat of <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord.<br />
Finally, I offer some conclusions <strong>and</strong> my prognosis for women’s involvement<br />
in constitutional politics in <strong>the</strong> future.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Women’s Movement in Canada — A Brief Overview<br />
<strong>The</strong> typology I will use to characterize <strong>the</strong> Canadian women’s movement does<br />
not rely on <strong>the</strong> usual ideological differences within feminism. Instead, I begin<br />
with <strong>the</strong> proposition that <strong>the</strong>re are two dominant elements—<strong>the</strong> English-<br />
Canadian movement, which relates primarily to <strong>the</strong> federal state, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
largely Francophone movement, which relates primarily to <strong>the</strong> Quebec state.<br />
Each is a majority position in relation to “its” state <strong>and</strong> has more power than <strong>the</strong><br />
minority elements with which it interacts. Majoritarian elements represent<br />
women of cultures which are dominant within <strong>the</strong>ir state, although Quebec<br />
Francophones are in a minority relationship vis-à-vis <strong>the</strong> Anglo-Canadian<br />
element, <strong>and</strong> English- Canadian feminists feel dominated by <strong>the</strong> U.S.<br />
movement, while Francophone feminists in Quebec are more comfortable<br />
with U.S. influences (Vickers, 1991b; Dumont, 1992).<br />
263
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
<strong>The</strong> majoritarian movements have similar agendas, although <strong>the</strong>y differ in<br />
organization <strong>and</strong> constitutional strategies. Diane <strong>La</strong>moureux (1990) <strong>and</strong><br />
Sylvia Bashevkin (1985), in strikingly similar analyses, identify in each<br />
movement a fundamental tension between a desire for integration, evidenced<br />
by work within <strong>the</strong> existing system, <strong>and</strong> a desire for autonomy expressed by <strong>the</strong><br />
use of non-traditional tactics in independent movement organizations.<br />
<strong>La</strong>moureux (1990) believes that this tension explains <strong>the</strong> oscillation of Quebec<br />
feminism between modernity (women’s rights) <strong>and</strong> post-modernity (women’s<br />
liberation). Vickers, Rankin <strong>and</strong> Appelle (1993) similarly identify a number of<br />
forces within English-Canadian movement organizations, such as <strong>the</strong> National<br />
Action Committee on <strong>the</strong> Status of Women (NAC). Micheline de Sève argues<br />
that “<strong>the</strong> history of <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong>and</strong> Quebec women’s movements is<br />
interwoven with complex relationships between equally feminist tendencies,<br />
reflecting <strong>the</strong> diverse <strong>and</strong> composite identities of <strong>the</strong> women’s groups at<br />
various times” (1992: 137).<br />
<strong>The</strong> similarities in <strong>the</strong>se two majoritarian elements continue in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
relationships with <strong>the</strong> minorities with whom <strong>the</strong>y interact. Both, in <strong>the</strong> past,<br />
have “included” some aboriginal women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir projects but, more recently,<br />
<strong>the</strong> relationships have become more complex as aboriginal women create <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
own movements centred primarily on <strong>the</strong> issues raised by aboriginal selfgovernment.<br />
Immigrant, ethnic <strong>and</strong> racial minority women perceive<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves to have been marginalized by <strong>the</strong> two majoritarian elements, <strong>and</strong><br />
both English-Canadian <strong>and</strong> Quebec feminists have had to respond to <strong>the</strong>se<br />
perceptions (Basseletti <strong>and</strong> Méhu, 1991; Day, 1991). Similarly, lesbian<br />
women <strong>and</strong> women with disabilities, while not part of minority cultures in <strong>the</strong><br />
same sense, have none<strong>the</strong>less experienced marginalization <strong>and</strong> have<br />
expressed constitutional positions <strong>the</strong>y feared would o<strong>the</strong>rwise be<br />
unrepresented.<br />
For <strong>the</strong> purposes of this paper, <strong>the</strong>n, I will characterize <strong>the</strong> Canadian women’s<br />
movement as composed of four major elements. <strong>The</strong> first three “elements”—<br />
<strong>the</strong> Anglo-Canadian, <strong>the</strong> Quebec Francophone <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> aboriginal—have<br />
internal dynamics of <strong>the</strong>ir own <strong>and</strong> each could be analyzed as a movement in its<br />
own right. Each also interacts with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, however, especially in <strong>the</strong><br />
context of constitutional politics. <strong>The</strong> fourth “element” is more artificial,<br />
including francophones outside of Quebec, immigrant <strong>and</strong> racial minority<br />
women, lesbians <strong>and</strong> women with disabilities, all characterized by <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
marginalization from <strong>the</strong> dynamics of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r three. Each of <strong>the</strong>se four<br />
“elements” <strong>and</strong> each of <strong>the</strong> groups within <strong>the</strong> fourth element has developed a<br />
conscious identity in relation to <strong>the</strong> constitutional order.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se fragments are reflected in something as simple as when Canadian<br />
women got <strong>the</strong> right to vote. <strong>The</strong> “official” answer is 1918, when white women<br />
got <strong>the</strong> federal franchise. Quebec women might answer 1940, when <strong>the</strong>y won<br />
<strong>the</strong> Quebec franchise after a long struggle. Some racial minority (Asian)<br />
women suffered exclusion along with <strong>the</strong>ir menfolk, <strong>and</strong> aboriginal women<br />
who retained <strong>the</strong>ir government-assigned “status” under <strong>the</strong> Indian Act were<br />
denied <strong>the</strong> vote until 1960, first exercising it in 1961. Hence, Mohawk poet<br />
Lee Maracle declared recently: “So women got <strong>the</strong> vote in 1961 <strong>and</strong> not a<br />
second before. I want every single person to put it that way <strong>and</strong> never again (to)<br />
erase any woman in this country” (1991: 67). This fragmentation <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
limited (elite) interaction among <strong>the</strong> different fragments in <strong>the</strong> past led women<br />
to assume <strong>the</strong>ir experiences were common to all. With a decade of involvement<br />
in constitutional politics, however, knowledge of o<strong>the</strong>r women’s experiences<br />
264
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
has grown <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is now greater awareness that <strong>the</strong> relative power of <strong>the</strong><br />
different elements is not <strong>the</strong> same. My accounts of <strong>the</strong>se identities will be<br />
sketchy but should illuminate both <strong>the</strong> movement’s complexity <strong>and</strong> its success<br />
in developing stable movement institutions within which dialogue can occur.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Aboriginal Element<br />
Aboriginal women have experienced <strong>the</strong> most profound oppression both<br />
because of gender <strong>and</strong> because of <strong>the</strong> expropriation, cultural disruption,<br />
racism, poverty <strong>and</strong> marginalization which resulted from conquest <strong>and</strong><br />
colonization. In 1928, shortly after white women received <strong>the</strong> federal franchise,<br />
<strong>the</strong> aboriginal women <strong>and</strong> men called “Indian” by <strong>the</strong> Europeans were denied<br />
<strong>the</strong> right to organize politically (Maracle, 1991: 67).<br />
Aboriginal women’s responses to damage <strong>the</strong>y suffered from colonial <strong>and</strong><br />
post-colonial racism <strong>and</strong> oppression has differed. Patricia Monture-Okanne,<br />
for example, argues:<br />
Aboriginal persons cannot be healed until <strong>the</strong> truth is told about <strong>the</strong><br />
history of this country. Until this is possible, I cannot do <strong>the</strong> womanspecific<br />
healing that is also necessary to my well-being. This is so<br />
because my woman’s identity flows from my racial <strong>and</strong> cultural<br />
identity. (1991: 30)<br />
Monture-Okanne’s view is that “rights” 6 for individual women can only result<br />
from securing <strong>the</strong>ir nation’s collective right to self-government (indeed, for<br />
Monture-Okanne, its sovereignty). Only an autonomous nation could develop<br />
an appropriate underst<strong>and</strong>ing of “rights.” O<strong>the</strong>r women seek a balance<br />
between individual <strong>and</strong> collective rights <strong>and</strong> between traditional <strong>and</strong> modern<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ings of “rights.” A third position has been advanced primarily by<br />
women who were denied “Indian rights” under <strong>the</strong> Indian Act. Having<br />
successfully employed <strong>the</strong> power of a constitutional regime protecting<br />
individual “rights” to regain <strong>the</strong>ir Indian “status,” <strong>the</strong>y fear <strong>the</strong> possible effects<br />
of any exemption of First Nations from <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. <strong>The</strong> Native Women’s<br />
Association of Canada (NWAC), for example, while supporting recognition of<br />
aboriginal people’s inherent right to self-government, also argued for<br />
protecting aboriginal women’s “sexual equality rights” which, it believed,<br />
would not be respected if governments “simply choose to recognize <strong>the</strong><br />
patriarchal forms which now exist in our communities” (Stacey-Moore, 1991:<br />
5). Many aboriginal leaders, however, argue that “to place aboriginal groups<br />
under <strong>the</strong> higher authority of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>...would sabotage <strong>the</strong> fundamental<br />
principle that <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal governments drew <strong>the</strong>ir authority from <strong>the</strong><br />
inherent rights of Aboriginal people” (Hall, 1992: 42).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se positions have not always been easy for <strong>the</strong> majoritarian movements to<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>. Anglo-Canadian feminists have been supportive of <strong>the</strong> position<br />
advanced by NWAC with organizations like NAC providing moral <strong>and</strong><br />
tangible support. <strong>The</strong> aboriginal element, however, involves women along a<br />
continuum. While most support some kind of self-government, many also<br />
want some kind of protection for <strong>the</strong>ir rights as women. Francophone women<br />
in Quebec have also been faced with accommodating <strong>the</strong> aboriginal fact. <strong>The</strong><br />
Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ)’s 1992 forum “Un Québec féminin<br />
pluriel : pour un projet féministe de société,” included plans for a pluralist,<br />
feminist Quebec which would “respect” First Nations while still asserting <strong>the</strong><br />
rights of <strong>the</strong> Francophone majority in <strong>the</strong> territory of Quebec. <strong>The</strong> FFQ’s<br />
265
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
recognition of aboriginal women as subject to double discrimination, like<br />
NAC’s support for <strong>the</strong> NWAC, however, was not based on an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of<br />
<strong>the</strong> full range of positions among aboriginal women from acceptance of full<br />
integration within a sovereign Quebec to dem<strong>and</strong>s for complete sovereignty.<br />
Aboriginal women, eight of ten of whom are survivors of abusive<br />
relationships, often reject majoritarian feminist “solutions” for <strong>the</strong>se<br />
problems, preferring a community healing approach, which keeps abusers out<br />
of white jails. This difference in philosophy has limited <strong>the</strong> practical<br />
interaction between aboriginal women <strong>and</strong> most majority feminists. In<br />
general, <strong>the</strong> stance of <strong>the</strong> majoritarian movements has been to “integrate”<br />
(incorporate) aboriginal women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir projects. Many aboriginal women<br />
have resisted this trend, especially in <strong>the</strong> last decade.<br />
As <strong>the</strong> most disadvantaged women in Canada, it is not surprising that <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional views of aboriginal women were rarely unanimous. Aboriginal<br />
women have not enjoyed <strong>the</strong> opportunity or <strong>the</strong> financial support necessary to<br />
build parliamentary umbrella organizations like NAC <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> FFQ within<br />
which a common strategy could have been attempted. Both <strong>the</strong> NWAC <strong>and</strong><br />
Métis women, for example, were denied access as groups of women to <strong>the</strong><br />
federal funding provided to aboriginal associations for preparing <strong>and</strong><br />
presenting constitutional positions <strong>and</strong> to <strong>the</strong> constitutional bargaining table.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Federal Court of Appeal ruled on August 20, 1992, that <strong>the</strong> NWAC’s<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> freedom of expression had been violated. <strong>The</strong> court also held that <strong>the</strong><br />
Assembly of First Nations (AFN), <strong>the</strong> Inuit Tapirasat, <strong>the</strong> Métis National<br />
Council <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Native Council of Canada “do not speak for <strong>the</strong> women of <strong>the</strong><br />
First Nations” (Bayevsky, 1992:1). O<strong>the</strong>r aboriginal women, however, did not<br />
agree with this position. <strong>The</strong> President of <strong>the</strong> Metis National Council stated<br />
that Métis women “do not feel that <strong>the</strong> Native Women’s Association (NWAC)<br />
speaks for <strong>the</strong>m,” (Genaille, 1992). Similarly, Rosemarie Kuptana <strong>and</strong> Mary<br />
Simon represented <strong>the</strong> Inuit Tapirasat at <strong>the</strong> bargaining table in <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown “round” of constitutional talks <strong>and</strong> supported <strong>the</strong> Accord,<br />
indicating that <strong>the</strong>re is significant division among aboriginal women both on<br />
how <strong>the</strong>y ought to be represented <strong>and</strong> on matters of constitutional substance.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Quebec Element<br />
In Quebec, <strong>the</strong> largely Francophone movement grew to maturity in symbiosis<br />
with Quebec’s drive to modernization. As Micheline Dumont argues: “<strong>The</strong><br />
truth is that feminism in Quebec was stimulated <strong>and</strong> nurtured by <strong>the</strong> powerful<br />
nationalist movements which swept Quebec between 1963 <strong>and</strong> 1990”<br />
(1992:89). <strong>The</strong> movement’s major institution is <strong>the</strong> FFQ, founded in 1966<br />
(Clio Collective, 1987). <strong>The</strong> FFQ has become more inclusive <strong>and</strong> multi-ethnic<br />
with many more members, although most leftist <strong>and</strong> radical feminist groups<br />
remain outside (Maroney, 1988). In 1987, it included 58 associations <strong>and</strong><br />
45,000 individual members (FFQ, 1987).<br />
Most elements of <strong>the</strong> Quebec movement favour <strong>the</strong> decentralization of <strong>the</strong><br />
federal system; that is, most Quebec feminists, whe<strong>the</strong>r federalists or<br />
separatists, support <strong>the</strong> devolution of more power to Quebec. Ethnic <strong>and</strong> racial<br />
minority women in Quebec along with Anglophone <strong>and</strong> many aboriginal<br />
women, are less accepting of this devolution of power. Most Francophone<br />
feminists are nationalists because <strong>the</strong>y are feminists not in spite of it. <strong>The</strong>ir<br />
feminist “project of <strong>the</strong> state” involves making feminism fully<br />
institutionalized within <strong>the</strong> Quebec state <strong>and</strong> society (Clio Collective, 1987;<br />
266
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
FFQ, 1992). For Dumont, “<strong>the</strong> slogan ‘No women’s liberation without Quebec<br />
liberation. No Quebec liberation without women’s liberation’” is at <strong>the</strong> heart<br />
of Quebec feminism (1992:76). None<strong>the</strong>less, Francophone feminists in<br />
Quebec are divided on how to complete “<strong>the</strong> project of <strong>the</strong> state.” As Ginette<br />
Busque notes, “Canadian women outside of Quebec do not have to choose<br />
between federalism <strong>and</strong> sovereignty, while Quebec women find it difficult to<br />
decide on <strong>the</strong>ir future as women without taking into account <strong>the</strong> status of <strong>the</strong><br />
province,” (1991:15). <strong>The</strong> FFQ, however, while remaining neutral in <strong>the</strong> first<br />
sovereignty referendum, now advances a sovereigntist position.<br />
Whe<strong>the</strong>r federalist or sovereigntist, Francophone feminists trust <strong>the</strong> Quebec<br />
state more than <strong>the</strong> federal state. Writing about women’s groups outside of<br />
Quebec, an FFQ brief in 1987 noted, “<strong>the</strong>se groups are usually much more<br />
distrustful of <strong>the</strong> provincial authorities than we are,” (26). Many in Quebec<br />
believe that “...it is probably easier to initiate changes at <strong>the</strong> provincial level<br />
than at <strong>the</strong> federal level,” (Maillé, 1991:80). Some, like Chantal Maillé,<br />
believe that women are best served by <strong>the</strong> government closest to <strong>the</strong>m having<br />
<strong>the</strong> powers critical to <strong>the</strong>ir lives as women.<br />
Thus, Francophone feminists in Quebec operate as a majoritarian movement<br />
vis-à-vis aboriginal <strong>and</strong> minority women within Quebec society. Claire<br />
Bonenfant argues that continuing as part of Canada would preclude <strong>the</strong><br />
development in Quebec of <strong>the</strong> feminist “projet de société” which could meet<br />
<strong>the</strong> needs of women because of <strong>the</strong> inefficiencies <strong>and</strong> duplication she views as<br />
inherent in Canadian federalism. This rejection of federalism began with<br />
Quebec feminists’ inability get divorce transferred to <strong>the</strong> Quebec jurisdiction<br />
where o<strong>the</strong>r aspects of family law reside (Bonenfant, 1991). This frustration<br />
with <strong>the</strong>ir inability to create a coherent policy on <strong>the</strong> family has marked <strong>the</strong><br />
views of <strong>the</strong> Francophone majority in Quebec from <strong>the</strong> late 1970s to <strong>the</strong><br />
present.<br />
No women in Canada have undergone changes in <strong>the</strong>ir beliefs <strong>and</strong> behaviour<br />
as profound as Francophone women in Quebec since <strong>the</strong> 1960s, making<br />
Quebec society Canada’s most progressive jurisdiction on many issues<br />
(Lipset, 1990). Not all Francophone feminists in Quebec, however, fully share<br />
this view of Quebec as a jurisdiction so advanced as to gain nothing from, for<br />
example, an entrenched federal <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms. In a<br />
September, 1987 brief, apparently written in reaction to accusations made<br />
against “les féministes anglophones” by well-known Québécois feminist<br />
Lysianne Gagnon, <strong>the</strong> Réseau d’Action et d’Information pour les Femmes<br />
(RAIF) argued that Quebec feminists should have joined with <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
Anglophone colleagues seeking to streng<strong>the</strong>n gender equality in <strong>the</strong> context of<br />
a constitutional recognition of Quebec as a “distinct society.” In fact, RAIF<br />
believed that, from 1981 on, Quebec feminists should have joined <strong>the</strong><br />
campaign to gain <strong>the</strong> best possible legal protection from a dual jurisdictional<br />
constitution. <strong>The</strong> RAIF brief identified a number of areas in which RAIF<br />
believed Quebec law was severely lacking in terms of women’s rights,<br />
especially in economic areas. RAIF expressed fear that a clash of loyalties<br />
could weaken or subordinate women’s rights under a distinct society regime<br />
by elevating collective over individual rights (RAIF, 1987).<br />
Anglophone feminists have had mixed views about <strong>the</strong> “projet de société.”<br />
Historically, left-wing feminists in English Canada tended to sympathize with<br />
Quebec’s desire for self-determination. More recently, especially since<br />
Quebec’s embracing of Mulroney conservatism <strong>and</strong> free trade, this support has<br />
267
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
weakened. None<strong>the</strong>less, current support in NAC, for example, for a “three<br />
nations” position reflects a growing awareness of <strong>the</strong> position put by<br />
Micheline de Sève that national identity ra<strong>the</strong>r than always hostile to feminism<br />
is “a potential tool for creating adequate space of all kinds of individual <strong>and</strong><br />
group self-awareness,” (1992:135).<br />
<strong>The</strong> Anglo-Canadian Element<br />
<strong>The</strong> Anglo-Canadian movement has a history of continuous organization since<br />
1892, with <strong>the</strong> many organizations founded during <strong>the</strong> early period of<br />
mobilization being revitalized by <strong>the</strong> cross-country hearing of <strong>the</strong> Royal<br />
Commission on <strong>the</strong> Status of Women (Begin, 1992) so that most came to<br />
support feminist causes. Hence <strong>the</strong> older women’s organizations, which<br />
played a key role in establishing <strong>the</strong> Canadian welfare state (Andrew, 1984),<br />
were not alienated from <strong>the</strong> movement as it was reshaped by <strong>the</strong> women’s<br />
liberation movement <strong>and</strong> by left feminism. Consequently, in English Canada,<br />
ideologically diverse groups, instead of being organized into separate<br />
“wings,” share institutions such as NAC <strong>and</strong> co-operate in alliances to achieve<br />
common goals (Vickers, Rankin <strong>and</strong> Appelle, 1993).<br />
Anglo-Canadian feminists have been deeply distrustful of <strong>the</strong>ir provincial<br />
governments, looking instead to <strong>the</strong> federal government. Albertan Ann<br />
McLellan argues that many women “have viewed provincial governments as<br />
less tolerant <strong>and</strong> receptive to <strong>the</strong>ir claims for equality than <strong>the</strong> national<br />
government” (1991:10). By contrast to Chantal Maillé’s logic, McLellan<br />
argues for <strong>the</strong> greater practicality <strong>and</strong> efficiency in women’s groups directing<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir lobbying to one (federal) government instead of ten (provincial) ones,<br />
concluding that “once <strong>the</strong> federal government is convinced of <strong>the</strong> need of a<br />
program or initiative, it can ensure its availability on a national basis,”<br />
(1991:10).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se conclusions reflect <strong>the</strong> quite different experiences of <strong>the</strong> two<br />
movements. <strong>The</strong> Quebec movement, made optimistic by two decades of<br />
substantial progress for women under different Quebec governments, has<br />
experienced frustrations with federal governments which <strong>the</strong>y see as less<br />
progressive <strong>and</strong> inclined to intervene in Quebec in ways harmful to women. 7<br />
Anglo-Canadian feminists are part of a movement which has been a client of<br />
<strong>and</strong>, until recently, significantly funded by <strong>the</strong> federal government. Shelagh<br />
Day, currently Chair of <strong>the</strong> NAC constitution committee reveals <strong>the</strong> roots of<br />
this pro-federalism when she argues “...as a woman from B.C., a province<br />
which has suffered government by car dealer for all but four of <strong>the</strong> past forty<br />
years...I fear...powers being devolved to my province,” (1991:98). Moreover,<br />
some recent research suggests that in most of English Canada (Alberta is an<br />
exception) regionalism, that is political loyalty to a province or region, is more<br />
characteristic of men than of women in contemporary Canada at least on issues<br />
such as free trade (O’Neill, 1992; Gidengil, 1992). Indeed, gender would<br />
appear to be a more salient political force among Anglophone women who can<br />
reach a “national” approach on major issues more easily than Anglophone men<br />
for whom regionalism is a more potent force. <strong>The</strong> English-Canadian<br />
movement, <strong>the</strong>n, is composed of women who often see <strong>the</strong>ir views as Canadian<br />
views to be defined in opposition to male-stream views or U.S. views. It is also<br />
clearly a majoritarian element vis-à-vis minority <strong>and</strong> marginalized women.<br />
268
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
<strong>The</strong> Fourth Element: Minorities <strong>and</strong> Marginalized Voices<br />
Until <strong>the</strong> 1980s, <strong>the</strong> Canadian movement was largely bi-national in character<br />
with <strong>the</strong> two majoritarian movements dominating <strong>the</strong> agenda <strong>and</strong> debate (De<br />
Sève, 1992:111). In <strong>the</strong> past decade, this dominance was challenged by waves<br />
of women marginalized because of race, ethnic minority status, disability or<br />
sexual orientation. Because racial <strong>and</strong> immigrant minority communities have<br />
often chosen to operate in English, <strong>the</strong>se pressures have been especially<br />
evident in NAC (Vickers, Rankin <strong>and</strong> Appelle, 1993). None<strong>the</strong>less, as <strong>the</strong> FFQ<br />
became increasingly multi-ethnic, it also experienced <strong>the</strong>se pressures<br />
(Basseletti <strong>and</strong> Méhu, 1991; FFQ, 1991; 1992).<br />
<strong>The</strong> women who make up what I have called <strong>the</strong> “fourth element” have created<br />
networks of <strong>the</strong>ir organizations through which <strong>the</strong>y advocate for change. <strong>The</strong><br />
struggle for <strong>the</strong> institutions of <strong>the</strong> two majoritarian movements has been to<br />
“become a voice for all women...(so) that we articulate <strong>the</strong> many issues of<br />
women, not only those of white middle-class women” so as to foster “<strong>the</strong><br />
politics of inclusion,” (Day, 1991:96). A genuine acceptance of difference,<br />
however, may challenge what were previously thought of as “bottom-line”<br />
feminist positions, as when women with disabilities challenge <strong>the</strong> view that a<br />
fetus which will result in a child with a disability ought routinely to be aborted.<br />
Canadian feminists have insisted that equality between men <strong>and</strong> women does<br />
not necessarily result from same treatment (Vickers, 1984). Using this<br />
principle, as a way of underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>and</strong> views of minority <strong>and</strong><br />
marginalized women has not always been so easy.<br />
In NAC, women representing groups of minority <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rwise marginalized<br />
women now constitute almost half of <strong>the</strong> executive <strong>and</strong> hold several major<br />
leadership positions representing a major change over <strong>the</strong> past decade. This<br />
has resulted in NAC policies being more supportive of positions advanced by<br />
minority <strong>and</strong> marginalized women. In particular, women in this category have<br />
tended to feel especially dependent on <strong>the</strong> protection of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> on <strong>the</strong><br />
federal government’s provision of programs of support. While minority <strong>and</strong><br />
marginalized women tend to share <strong>the</strong>se constitutional positions, none<strong>the</strong>less,<br />
<strong>the</strong>re are important differences among <strong>the</strong>m. In Quebec, some minority<br />
women have integrated <strong>the</strong>ir concerns into <strong>the</strong> “projet de société” <strong>and</strong>, indeed,<br />
Quebec explicitly protects <strong>the</strong> rights of gays <strong>and</strong> lesbians at a much higher<br />
level than <strong>the</strong> federal <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>.<br />
Francophone women outside of Quebec represented by <strong>the</strong> Fédération<br />
nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises (FNFCF), have had a unique<br />
perspective on <strong>the</strong> issues raised in a decade of constitutional debate <strong>and</strong><br />
bargaining. Founded in 1914, <strong>the</strong> Fédération includes forty women’s groups<br />
<strong>and</strong> is a member of NAC. In a 1990 brief, <strong>the</strong> FNFCF, while not taking a st<strong>and</strong><br />
on <strong>the</strong> possibility of independence for Quebec, stressed its members’ desire to<br />
weave alliances, especially with Quebec women’s groups. In a 1992 brief,<br />
while supporting NAC’s constitutional positions, <strong>the</strong> FNFCF expressed its<br />
own ten principles regarding constitutional renewal. It stressed such things as<br />
linguistic duality in Canada <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Senate, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> protection (with no override)<br />
of <strong>the</strong> rights of minority linguistic communities. In general, it supported a<br />
vision of an asymmetrical federation supporting <strong>the</strong> transfer of many powers to<br />
Quebec but not to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provinces. In this, it influenced NAC’s<br />
development of <strong>the</strong> asymmetrical federalism position.<br />
269
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Issues in Common <strong>and</strong> Issues in Conflict: What Makes <strong>the</strong> Women’s<br />
Movement “Tick” <strong>Constitution</strong>ally?<br />
A common thread in all feminist commentary is a profound sense of exclusion<br />
from <strong>the</strong> process of constitution-making. Until 1992, when Inuit Tapirasat<br />
leaders Rosemarie Kuptana <strong>and</strong> Mary Simon, <strong>and</strong> Northwest Territories<br />
government leader Nellie Cournoyea took <strong>the</strong>ir hard-won places at <strong>the</strong> First<br />
Ministers’ bargaining table, Ginette Busque’s declaration that “our country<br />
has had many ‘fa<strong>the</strong>rs’ but no ‘mo<strong>the</strong>rs,’” (Busque, 1991:13) held true.<br />
Intellectually, most feminists still feel it is true. At least half of Canada’s<br />
population, women have been forced to lobby from outside <strong>the</strong> process,<br />
described as a “special interest” by <strong>the</strong> constitutional gurus <strong>and</strong> media alike.<br />
Distrustful of political parties, many have no great trust in women of <strong>the</strong><br />
political class.<br />
In my survey of feminist writings on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, I identified four basic<br />
sets of issues:<br />
(1) <strong>the</strong> process of constitution making;<br />
(2) federal/provincial powers <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> issue of decentralization/<br />
sovereignty;<br />
(3) women’s representation in political institutions;<br />
(4) <strong>the</strong> entrenchment of legal rights in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
legal approach to equality-seeking it entails.<br />
Women tended to advance common positions on <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional process <strong>and</strong> on <strong>the</strong> issue of women’s representation. By<br />
contrast, <strong>the</strong>re were significant differences expressed on <strong>the</strong> issues of<br />
federalism <strong>and</strong> decentralization <strong>and</strong> on a legal approach to equality-seeking. In<br />
this text, I will pay ra<strong>the</strong>r more attention to <strong>the</strong> three substantive issues dealing<br />
only briefly with <strong>the</strong> matter of process. 8<br />
<strong>Federalism</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Division of Powers <strong>and</strong> Decentralization<br />
Women’s original interest in constitutional matters stemmed from questions<br />
concerning <strong>the</strong> division of powers. Quebec women supported <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
government’s request to have divorce transferred to <strong>the</strong> provincial jurisdiction<br />
to permit an integrated approach to family law. 9 English-Canadian women<br />
mobilized in opposition when <strong>the</strong> federal government proposed to transfer <strong>the</strong><br />
regulation of divorce to <strong>the</strong> provinces in 1978.<br />
Throughout <strong>the</strong> decade, this divide is evident with Quebec women supporting<br />
greater decentralization (many of <strong>the</strong>ir groups favour sovereignty) while<br />
English-Canadian <strong>and</strong> most minority women support <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
spending power <strong>and</strong> shared jurisdictions to achieve a greater st<strong>and</strong>ardization<br />
of programs across Canada. Given that <strong>the</strong>re is little difference in terms of <strong>the</strong><br />
substance of <strong>the</strong>ir agendas, why do <strong>the</strong>y disagree about how <strong>the</strong>se goals should<br />
be achieved?<br />
<strong>The</strong> divorce issue illustrates one reason for <strong>the</strong> difference quite clearly, <strong>and</strong><br />
shows <strong>the</strong> kind of analysis we must develop to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs. To<br />
women outside of Quebec, transferring responsibility for divorce to <strong>the</strong><br />
provinces would have created a patchwork quilt with different grounds <strong>and</strong><br />
waiting periods from province to province. For Francophone feminists this<br />
does not cause concern if <strong>the</strong>y anticipate living all of <strong>the</strong>ir lives in Quebec.<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r women, however, face <strong>the</strong> possibility of being moved from province to<br />
270
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
province while married <strong>and</strong> of being marooned in a province without a divorce<br />
law or with one which is not helpful to women. 10<br />
This central difference reflects <strong>the</strong> fact that English-Canadian <strong>and</strong> minority<br />
women feel <strong>the</strong>y must be concerned with conditions anywhere in Canada<br />
because <strong>the</strong>y may find <strong>the</strong>mselves living <strong>the</strong>re. Quebec women, who must<br />
accept less physical mobility if <strong>the</strong>y wish to live in French, wish to get <strong>the</strong> best<br />
possible system <strong>the</strong>re (Vickers, 1991a; Dumont, 1991). Ann McLellan has<br />
argued that <strong>the</strong> inclusion of an enforceable social charter would make women<br />
outside of Quebec less fearful of decentralization, provided <strong>the</strong>y could use it to<br />
ensure some comparability of benefits, legal conditions <strong>and</strong> support programs<br />
wherever <strong>the</strong>y might end up living (McLellan, 1991:11). This point of view is<br />
also apparent in <strong>the</strong> FNFCF analysis (1992).<br />
This analysis points to women’s recognition that at this point in our history<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are more likely to be dependent on <strong>the</strong> state than men for programs of<br />
support. Indeed, <strong>the</strong> FNFCF brief argued this explicitly (1992:18-19).<br />
Canadian women, however, also have been concerned with <strong>the</strong> obstacles that<br />
<strong>the</strong> division of powers has put in <strong>the</strong> way of women’s political objectives such<br />
as <strong>the</strong> “federalism foxtrot” in which governments compete in not invading one<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r’s jurisdiction by not doing what women need or want all <strong>the</strong> while<br />
saying “my h<strong>and</strong>s are tied.” English-Canadian <strong>and</strong> most minority women,<br />
while frustrated by <strong>the</strong> “federalism foxtrot,” none<strong>the</strong>less see shared<br />
jurisdictions as providing leverage for federal influence on reluctant provinces<br />
in achieving desired goals. By contrast, Quebec feminists see “une<br />
irresponsabilité partagée” (<strong>La</strong>moureux, 1991:60) as something to be<br />
eliminated (FFQ, 1990; 1992; Bonenfant, 1991).<br />
<strong>The</strong> debate about federalism has not yet developed a philosophical dimension<br />
among feminists. <strong>The</strong> position of Lord Acton (which is associated in Canada<br />
with P.E. Trudeau) that concentrated power permits <strong>the</strong> abuse of power more<br />
easily than a federal system in which power is deliberately divided, is not<br />
advanced or refuted by feminists of any ethnicity or ideology. Philosophically,<br />
Francophone feminists in Quebec appear to favour <strong>the</strong> concentration of all (or<br />
most) powers in Quebec to allow for greater participation by women in<br />
decentralizing decision making, for example, to <strong>the</strong> local state (FFQ, 1992:<br />
Fiche 9, e.g.; Begin, Marine, 1991; Dumont, 1991; <strong>La</strong>joie; 1991; <strong>La</strong>moureux,<br />
1991).<br />
Most Francophone feminists believe <strong>the</strong> success of <strong>the</strong>ir agenda in Quebec has<br />
depended on <strong>the</strong> decentralization of powers in areas where this has been<br />
possible. Chantal Maillé concludes, for example, that “...it has been possible<br />
for <strong>the</strong> women’s health movement to obtain positive results...because <strong>the</strong><br />
claims were negotiated with a provincial government which had already<br />
negotiated a maximum amount of autonomy in <strong>the</strong> definition of policies <strong>and</strong><br />
programs,” (1991:79). While <strong>the</strong> decentralized <strong>and</strong> non-bureaucratic<br />
administration of programs is consistent with women-centred philosophies,<br />
most Anglophone <strong>and</strong> most minority women believe “national st<strong>and</strong>ards” <strong>and</strong><br />
coast-to-coast programs are also important to <strong>the</strong>ir well-being.<br />
Representation in Political Institutions<br />
Within <strong>the</strong> movement, <strong>the</strong>re is wide agreement with <strong>the</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> for <strong>the</strong> more<br />
equitable representation for women in Canada’s political institutions <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
reform of its electoral system. In 1981, Mary O’Brien argued that <strong>the</strong><br />
movement should dem<strong>and</strong> proportional representation “to erode <strong>the</strong><br />
271
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
monolithic substance of <strong>the</strong> state” (O’Brien, 1981:7). 11 <strong>The</strong> movement seeks<br />
equitable political representation 12 <strong>and</strong> has identified <strong>the</strong> structural barriers<br />
which inhibit this. Quebec women have also recognized <strong>the</strong>ir exclusion as<br />
women. Ginette Busque notes, for example:<br />
...women exerted pressure to be represented as a group on <strong>the</strong><br />
Bélanger-Campeau Commission...which was not granted. <strong>The</strong>y were<br />
told that ‘women’ had already been named...[but] [n]o significance<br />
was attached to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>se women had no m<strong>and</strong>ate to represent<br />
<strong>the</strong> interests of women. (1991:13)<br />
She concludes, “this probably denotes a fundamental refusal to believe that<br />
women, as a group, have special interests” (1991:13) or that most men believe<br />
women’s interests can be represented by male leaders or that any woman can<br />
“represent” <strong>the</strong> interests <strong>and</strong> views of all women. 13<br />
Aboriginal women agreed that women should be equitably represented. But<br />
<strong>the</strong>y differed significantly among <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>and</strong> with <strong>the</strong> majoritarian<br />
movements concerning what that meant. In 1992, Wendy Moss, lead<br />
constitutional advisor to <strong>the</strong> Inuit Tapirasat, wrote: “if one of <strong>the</strong> goals of <strong>the</strong><br />
organized struggle of women is to ensure that women participate in<br />
governments <strong>and</strong> have a real voice, why have NAC <strong>and</strong> NWAC so discounted<br />
<strong>the</strong> role <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> voice of <strong>the</strong> aboriginal women who were at <strong>the</strong> table on behalf<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Inuit nation, namely, Mary Simon <strong>and</strong> Rosemarie Kuptana?” (2).<br />
NWAC, denied a seat at <strong>the</strong> constitutional “table” in 1992 on <strong>the</strong> grounds that<br />
<strong>the</strong> male-led organizations could represent <strong>the</strong>m, could not accept assurances<br />
that <strong>the</strong>ir concerns were being represented by Kuptana <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs at <strong>the</strong> table.<br />
Sharon McIvor of NWAC argued “We want a seat at <strong>the</strong> table <strong>and</strong> recognition<br />
as a separate group...” (Hill, 1992:3). One court eventually established<br />
NWAC’s right but only after <strong>the</strong> event. NAC’s dem<strong>and</strong> for a constituent<br />
assembly <strong>and</strong> its support for <strong>the</strong> NWAC position reflects <strong>the</strong> view that women<br />
need to articulate <strong>the</strong>ir diverse constitutional views directly <strong>and</strong> not through<br />
<strong>the</strong> voices of men or of women of o<strong>the</strong>r nations. Of course, this also reflects<br />
NAC’s view that it should have been “at <strong>the</strong> table” (presumably along with <strong>the</strong><br />
FFQ) to represent majoritarian women’s specific interests, as women.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Entrenchment of Rights <strong>and</strong> Equality-Seeking as a Legal Enterprise<br />
<strong>The</strong> majoritarian women’s movements in Canada have tended to see equalityseeking<br />
as a sociopolitical <strong>and</strong> economic process (Vickers, 1986). Pursuing<br />
legal equality goals, <strong>the</strong>refore, was controversial. As Chaviva Hosek notes,<br />
“...<strong>the</strong> drive for legal rights did not spring spontaneously from within <strong>the</strong><br />
women’s movement. Ra<strong>the</strong>r it developed in response to <strong>the</strong> determination of<br />
<strong>the</strong> federal government to entrench a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms during<br />
<strong>the</strong> patriation process,” (1983:283). If <strong>the</strong>re was to be a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, most feminists<br />
agreed it must not become an obstacle to <strong>the</strong> broader, substantive equalityseeking<br />
process. <strong>The</strong> legal strategy created a cadre of prominent feminist<br />
lawyers. Over <strong>the</strong> decade, <strong>the</strong>y have played a central role in educating<br />
Canadian women about legal <strong>and</strong> constitutional matters affecting women’s<br />
rights. Through <strong>the</strong> work of organizations like <strong>the</strong> Legal, Education <strong>and</strong> Action<br />
Fund (LEAF), most Anglophone <strong>and</strong> minority feminists came to see some<br />
value in <strong>the</strong> legal option.<br />
Despite this pragmatic acceptance of <strong>the</strong> legal equality project, o<strong>the</strong>rs opposed<br />
<strong>the</strong> enterprise. Most Francophone feminists in Quebec were hostile because of<br />
272
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
<strong>the</strong> overall alienation of Quebec from <strong>the</strong> patriation process. <strong>The</strong>y also<br />
believed that <strong>the</strong> Quebec “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>” passed in 1976, while not entrenched,<br />
made <strong>the</strong> protection offered by <strong>the</strong> federal <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> unnecessary. RAIF later<br />
disagreed, arguing that, in <strong>the</strong> case of human rights, too much protection is<br />
better than not enough (1987). Few Anglophone feminists even comprehended<br />
that <strong>the</strong>ir Quebec Francophone sisters were absent from <strong>the</strong> constitutional<br />
debates or why. Francophones from outside Quebec were present <strong>and</strong> most<br />
supported <strong>the</strong> Anglophone position on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. To this day, many<br />
Anglophone feminists believe <strong>the</strong> struggle for women’s <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights is a<br />
great victory in which all feminists share equal pride.<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r philosophical positions are expressed in opposition to <strong>the</strong> legal approach<br />
to equality. As labour lawyer Sheila Greckol has argued: “I do not believe in<br />
<strong>the</strong> legal system <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> law as a vehicle for achieving social justice for<br />
women,” (1991:103). Similar, Donna Greschner argues that “constitutional<br />
politics...historically have submerged <strong>the</strong> concerns <strong>and</strong> experiences of<br />
women,” (1991:55). Sherene Razack, speaking from <strong>the</strong> perspective of<br />
minority women, argues that <strong>the</strong> very nature of <strong>the</strong> law <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> legal system<br />
“tended to characterize femaleness in ways that reflect <strong>the</strong> experiences of...<strong>the</strong><br />
kind of women likely to be working in law—a white middle-class woman,”<br />
(1991:39). Megan Ellis concluded that <strong>the</strong> judiciary is not capable of acting to<br />
advance substantive equality for women because of its use of gender-neutral<br />
terms like sexual assault which harm women by hiding <strong>the</strong> fundamentally<br />
gendered nature of sexual violence (1986:17). Finally, many grass-roots<br />
feminists are resentful of <strong>the</strong> extent to which pursuit of <strong>the</strong> legal strategy has<br />
involved <strong>the</strong> dominance of movement strategy by lawyers <strong>and</strong> academics <strong>and</strong><br />
siphoned off money previously available for services. <strong>The</strong> government<br />
strategy of incorporating women’s equality-seeking under <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
threatened <strong>the</strong> stability of coalitions within <strong>and</strong> between movement<br />
organizations. Although <strong>the</strong> movement has largely recovered from those<br />
conflicts, <strong>the</strong> problems raised by <strong>the</strong> legal equality approach continue to<br />
threaten its effectiveness.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Politics<br />
Historically, Canadian constitutional politics have been so dominated by <strong>the</strong><br />
issues of dualism <strong>and</strong> regionalism that, “...<strong>the</strong> concerns of women...[were]<br />
simply not visible against <strong>the</strong> two parameters of Canadian cleavage...” (Ayim,<br />
1980:218). Given this constitutional invisibility <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> reluctance of English-<br />
Canadian feminists to enter into constitutional politics, how did movement<br />
leaders find a point of entry around which <strong>the</strong>y could mobilize support? 14<br />
Once Prime Minister Trudeau proposed to patriate <strong>the</strong> BNA Act along with a<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms, <strong>the</strong> mobilizing event for English-Canadian<br />
women was <strong>the</strong> resignation of Doris Anderson, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> President of <strong>the</strong><br />
government-appointed Canadian Advisory Council on <strong>the</strong> Status of Women<br />
(CACSW), in January 1981, charging that government interference had<br />
resulted in <strong>the</strong> cancellation of a Women’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al Conference. <strong>The</strong><br />
timing was crucial; <strong>the</strong> Special Joint Committee of <strong>the</strong> Senate <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> House<br />
was still deliberating but <strong>the</strong> government had brought a revised <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> into <strong>the</strong><br />
House. A later conference would not do. <strong>The</strong> Council, moreover, like most<br />
autonomous women’s groups, was critical of <strong>the</strong> equality guarantees in <strong>the</strong><br />
proposed <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> (Hosek, 1983:288). Anderson’s resignation meant that:<br />
273
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
<strong>The</strong> women’s movement suddenly had a heroine, a villain <strong>and</strong> an<br />
event, all of which symbolized its exclusion from <strong>the</strong> constitutional<br />
process. <strong>The</strong> media had a field day. <strong>The</strong> complex issues involved<br />
were reduced to a dramatic fight between a woman <strong>and</strong> a man (Lloyd<br />
Axworthy, <strong>the</strong> minister responsible for <strong>the</strong> status of women).<br />
(Hosek, 1983:289)<br />
Not all feminists, however, rallied round. A majority of <strong>the</strong> executive <strong>and</strong><br />
council of <strong>the</strong> CACSW declined to support Anderson <strong>and</strong> endorsed cancelling<br />
<strong>the</strong> conference. NAC was “sidelined” by internal conflict, part of which was<br />
resistance by left-wing members of <strong>the</strong> executive to a legal strategy (Vickers,<br />
Rankin <strong>and</strong> Appelle, 1993). Progressive Conservative feminists resisted<br />
unilateral patriation <strong>and</strong> were also divided on <strong>the</strong> value of an entrenched<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>. As late as <strong>the</strong> fall of 1981, Saskatchewan women’s groups opposed<br />
entrenching <strong>the</strong> sex equality guarantee (Section 28) as did <strong>the</strong> Saskatchewan<br />
NDP government on <strong>the</strong> grounds that, by shifting decisions about equality to<br />
<strong>the</strong> courts, progressive governments would be limited in advancing women’s<br />
equality (Hosek, 1983:289).<br />
<strong>The</strong> briefs presented to <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee, show that women wanted any<br />
constitutional guarantees of equality for women to go beyond equality in <strong>the</strong><br />
administration of justice to equal benefit <strong>and</strong> effect of <strong>the</strong> law. <strong>The</strong>y also<br />
wanted sexual orientation, marital status <strong>and</strong> political beliefs added to <strong>the</strong><br />
grounds on which discrimination would be prohibited. <strong>The</strong>y wanted no<br />
possibility that <strong>the</strong> proposed <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> could be interpreted as conferring rights<br />
on a fetus. <strong>The</strong>y wanted affirmative action programs protected against possible<br />
charges of reverse discrimination <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> to confer what <strong>the</strong>y<br />
called “Indian rights” on non-status Indian women. <strong>The</strong>y also wanted women<br />
to be fairly represented on <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court which would play an enlarged<br />
role under a <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> regime.<br />
A Women’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al Conference of over a thous<strong>and</strong> women, held on<br />
February 14, exp<strong>and</strong>ed women’s dem<strong>and</strong>s to include guarantees of<br />
reproductive freedom <strong>and</strong> equitable representation throughout <strong>the</strong> political<br />
system. After <strong>the</strong> conference, <strong>the</strong> process was directed by <strong>the</strong> largely Torontobased<br />
Ad Hoc group of “experts” in law <strong>and</strong> lobbying15 which was revived to<br />
play a role in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke debates <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> referendum on <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord. <strong>The</strong> Ad Hoc group drew heavily on NAC networks.<br />
<strong>The</strong> lobbying which followed <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Conference focused on<br />
getting legally effective texts for <strong>the</strong> equality rights sections (15 <strong>and</strong> 28) <strong>and</strong><br />
ensuring that Section 28 was not subject to governmental override. <strong>The</strong> experts<br />
marshalled thous<strong>and</strong>s of women, now enraged at <strong>the</strong> intransigence of male<br />
politicians who sought to deny <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> legal equality <strong>the</strong>y thought <strong>the</strong>y had<br />
always had in what became widely viewed as an “icon of feminist<br />
effectiveness” (Black, 1992:104).<br />
Few English-Canadian feminists understood <strong>the</strong> resistance to <strong>the</strong> new<br />
constitutional regime by most of Quebec’s Francophone feminists. <strong>The</strong><br />
misconception that in <strong>the</strong>ir resistance Quebec feminists were acting more as<br />
nationalists than as feminists developed. Majoritarian feminists also had<br />
difficulty underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>the</strong> views of many aboriginal women. Hastings <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>La</strong>wrence, for example, in reporting on <strong>the</strong> Women’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Conference, concluded “native women constituted a strong presence, although<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir presentation requesting a supportive resolution could not be considered<br />
because it asked for support of <strong>the</strong>ir plea for independent nationhood ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
274
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
than anything to do with issues of specific concern to native women<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves,” (my emphasis;1981:4). Few white feminists understood why<br />
some aboriginal women could believe that <strong>the</strong> rights of individual women<br />
couldn’t be secured until <strong>the</strong> collective rights of <strong>the</strong>ir nations were secured,<br />
while many non-status aboriginal women sought “status” through an<br />
individual rights regime.<br />
Many racial <strong>and</strong> ethnic minority women were mobilized into movement<br />
organizations like NAC, as were women with disabilities, by <strong>the</strong>se high profile<br />
campaigns for equality rights. O<strong>the</strong>r minority women, however, became<br />
involved in constitutional politics when <strong>the</strong>y were mobilized to fight against<br />
<strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord. 16<br />
<strong>The</strong> Road to Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
From 1982 to 1987 was a period of great activity <strong>and</strong> expansion for all parts of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian women’s movement with <strong>the</strong> rapid mobilization of minority <strong>and</strong><br />
marginalized women in particular. <strong>The</strong>re was also an extension of services in<br />
small towns, rural areas, ethnic <strong>and</strong> some aboriginal communities for women<br />
encountering rape <strong>and</strong> battering. Groups were created to fight <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> cases.<br />
Women’s unionization increased significantly as did <strong>the</strong> presence of women<br />
leaders in unions. Women in traditional occupations, especially nurses, were<br />
radicalized <strong>and</strong> fought a series of long, tough <strong>and</strong> successful strikes which<br />
gained wide support.<br />
In this period, English-Canadian society also became more ideologically<br />
polarized with <strong>the</strong> development of anti-feminist groups which rapidly<br />
mobilized right-wing women. <strong>The</strong> new Progressive Conservative government<br />
issued a Discussion Paper on Equality Issues in Federal <strong>La</strong>w (Sessional Paper<br />
No. 331-416) on January 31, 1985. When <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> was enacted, <strong>the</strong> equality<br />
sections were suspended until 1985 to allow governments to conduct statute<br />
audits. Instead, <strong>the</strong> Discussion Paper argued “that if <strong>the</strong>re is something in <strong>the</strong><br />
present law <strong>the</strong>n this indicates that it is acceptable social practice <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
should be immune from <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> challenge” (Proceedings 16:115). <strong>The</strong><br />
Committee to which it was referred reflected <strong>the</strong> government’s huge<br />
majority—five Conservatives, one Liberal <strong>and</strong> one New Democrat. <strong>The</strong><br />
Committee Chair, Toronto MP Patrick Boyer, however, was a progressive on<br />
rights issues <strong>and</strong> determined to hold national hearings. NAC established an<br />
Equality Rights project to support its members in attending hearings <strong>and</strong><br />
preparing briefs, which seventy NAC affiliates did (Feminist Action,<br />
December, 1985:11).<br />
NAC’s strategy was to discredit <strong>the</strong> “acceptable social practice” approach to<br />
equality rights <strong>and</strong> to “fill” <strong>the</strong> concept of equality with content about women’s<br />
lives during <strong>the</strong> hearings so that an “equality equals same treatment”<br />
formulation would not be endorsed by Parliament. Anti-feminist groups,<br />
which had not had time to organize during <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> debate, now argued that<br />
<strong>the</strong> very existence of constitutional equality guarantees were a “total attack on<br />
<strong>the</strong> foundation of a good stable country—<strong>the</strong> family,” (Proceedings 17:113).<br />
But <strong>the</strong>y were too late. Traditional women’s groups supported <strong>the</strong> equality<br />
sections advancing an equality of results approach similar to that advanced by<br />
NAC’s affiliates. <strong>The</strong> out-pouring of experiences from gay <strong>and</strong> lesbian groups<br />
seeking <strong>the</strong> explicit protection of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> was perhaps <strong>the</strong> most moving<br />
aspect of <strong>the</strong> Committee’s hearings, leading <strong>the</strong> Committee to endorse explicit<br />
protection.<br />
275
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
To <strong>the</strong> surprise of many, <strong>the</strong> Committee produced a unanimous report in under<br />
a year. Forty-one of its eighty-five recommendations involved changes in<br />
government legislation, policy or practice related to sexual equality<br />
guarantees. It also supported positive action such as contract compliance to<br />
achieve equality of results <strong>and</strong> rejected <strong>the</strong> view that this was “reverse<br />
discrimination.” While <strong>the</strong> government refused to act on many of <strong>the</strong><br />
Committee’s recommendations <strong>and</strong> dragged its feet on o<strong>the</strong>rs, <strong>the</strong> body of<br />
arguments developed was important in creating a discourse which focused on<br />
substantive instead of formal equality. Many grass-roots feminists, however,<br />
were disappointed that <strong>the</strong> Committee made no recommendations concerning<br />
abortion rights or pornography <strong>and</strong> declined to see denial of family status to<br />
same-sex couples as discrimination (Eliot, 1986:5).<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> also provided leverage to achieve changes in <strong>the</strong> Indian Act,<br />
allowing many Indian women to regain <strong>the</strong>ir “status” under <strong>the</strong> Act. Although<br />
majoritarian feminists saw this as <strong>the</strong> righting of an injustice imposed by a<br />
racist <strong>and</strong> patriarchal government, many aboriginal women <strong>and</strong> men, who<br />
were dem<strong>and</strong>ing self-government for <strong>the</strong>ir nations, saw it as ano<strong>the</strong>r attempt<br />
by white society to define citizenship in <strong>the</strong>ir nations, adding population<br />
without adding <strong>the</strong> resources needed to actually re-integrate women into <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
b<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
Quebec’s continuing alienation from <strong>the</strong> constitutional order led <strong>the</strong> new<br />
Prime Minister to negotiate <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, which recognized<br />
Quebec’s conditions for accepting <strong>the</strong> new <strong>Constitution</strong>. Many women were<br />
concerned about <strong>the</strong> recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, fearing that<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir hard-won equality rights could somehow be “trumped” by <strong>the</strong> “distinct<br />
society” provision which some feminist lawyers warned would create a<br />
hierarchy of rights. <strong>The</strong> limitation to be placed on <strong>the</strong> federal spending power<br />
also caused concern. <strong>The</strong> national shared-cost programs women had hoped to<br />
gain, such as childcare, now seemed impossible if <strong>the</strong> federal spending power<br />
were to be constrained as <strong>the</strong> Accord proposed. As Ginette Busque notes:<br />
“What Quebec women eventually began to realize...was that, maybe more<br />
than distinct society, it was <strong>the</strong> structuring of shared-cost programs which<br />
caused profound apprehension,” (1991:16).<br />
Ginette Busque notes that “Quebec women would have remained relatively<br />
remote from <strong>the</strong> issue had <strong>the</strong>y not been deeply offended by <strong>the</strong> interpretations<br />
placed by some groups on <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> impact it could<br />
eventually have on women both inside <strong>and</strong> outside Québec,” (1991:15). As<br />
Diane <strong>La</strong>moureux points out, “Ces groupes considèrent que l’expérience<br />
sociale des femmes fait également partie de la société distincte québécoise,”<br />
(1991:60). Quebec women “...repudiated... [a] vision of a small-minded<br />
Quebec where a distinct society could be promoted to <strong>the</strong> detriment of women<br />
<strong>and</strong> minorities.” As Ginette Busque concluded, in any event, “We also felt<br />
perfectly able to defend ourselves on our own ground, if need be,” (1991:15).<br />
Resentment of Quebec’s claims for special treatment, felt especially by some<br />
western, aboriginal <strong>and</strong> minority women, would perhaps have been softened if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y had known <strong>the</strong>se views.<br />
<strong>The</strong> revived Ad Hoc group, with LEAF <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r feminist legal groups,<br />
directed <strong>the</strong> campaign. When <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister called Anglophone feminists<br />
“racists” in <strong>the</strong> House, Christie Jefferson, executive director of LEAF, replied<br />
that “Most women’s organizations have predicated all critiques of<br />
<strong>the</strong>...Accord with a statement saying we favour Quebec’s status as a unique<br />
276
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
society...” (quoted Broadside, November 1987:3). Indeed, most of <strong>the</strong> briefs<br />
from <strong>the</strong> non-Quebec organizations to <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee on <strong>the</strong> 1987<br />
Accord did support distinct or unique society status for Quebec, but few<br />
showed any deep underst<strong>and</strong>ing of how this might create a different<br />
relationship to <strong>the</strong> constitutional order for <strong>the</strong> Quebec movement. On Section<br />
28 <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> “distinct society” issue, however, NAC <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> FFQ managed to<br />
develop a joint position on <strong>the</strong> protection of women’s equality guarantees<br />
(Roberts, 1988:14,15). This moved NAC closer to <strong>the</strong> “three nations” position<br />
it currently holds in support of asymmetrical federalism.<br />
Aboriginal <strong>and</strong> minority women were especially concerned about <strong>the</strong> Accord,<br />
although for different reasons. Most aboriginal women rejected <strong>the</strong> accord<br />
because of <strong>the</strong> possible impact of recognizing Quebec as a “distinct society” on<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir nations’ claims to l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> self-government. Marginalized women,<br />
especially those with disabilities, wanted to streng<strong>the</strong>n not weaken federal<br />
power. As Shelagh Day has argued:<br />
<strong>The</strong> desire of <strong>the</strong> equality-seeking groups is not to see <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
spending power dismantled through decentralization of<br />
responsibilities to <strong>the</strong> provinces. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong>ir desire is to<br />
ensure that <strong>the</strong> federal responsibility is enhanced by requiring <strong>the</strong><br />
federal government to ensure that every dollar that goes to o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
levels of government is spent in a way that complies with<br />
constitutional guarantees. (1991:98)<br />
In addition to <strong>the</strong>se substantive concerns, many feminists also opposed <strong>the</strong><br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord because of <strong>the</strong> process used by <strong>the</strong> eleven white men<br />
whose constitutional “baby” it was. Grass-roots feminists in English Canada<br />
again had clear enemies <strong>and</strong> viewed <strong>the</strong> process through jaundiced eyes <strong>and</strong>,<br />
although <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord was supported by <strong>the</strong> majority of women’s<br />
groups in Quebec, <strong>the</strong> closed processes of executive federalism caused offense<br />
<strong>the</strong>re as well. Moreover, as NAC <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> FFQ struggled to develop a<br />
compromise position on <strong>the</strong> Accord, some minority <strong>and</strong> marginalized women<br />
objected to <strong>the</strong>ir exclusion from this process of elite accommodation within<br />
organized feminism as well.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se controversies were an important learning opportunity in which <strong>the</strong> two<br />
majoritarian elements, came to underst<strong>and</strong> one ano<strong>the</strong>rs’ positions on<br />
constitutional issues far more clearly as a result. In January 1988, moreover,<br />
<strong>the</strong> efficacy of <strong>the</strong> legal strategy became more apparent as <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court,<br />
relying on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, removed <strong>the</strong> legal impediments to abortion in Canada.<br />
Quebec women, however, were shocked in 1989 when <strong>the</strong> Quebec Superior<br />
Court upheld an injunction granted to an ex-boyfriend preventing Chantal<br />
Daigle from having an abortion. Although <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court overturned <strong>the</strong><br />
injunction <strong>and</strong> made such third-party interventions impossible in <strong>the</strong> future,<br />
most Quebec feminists remained unpersuaded of <strong>the</strong> value of an entrenched<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> or of a federal court system. Indeed, as <strong>the</strong> presentations of prominent<br />
Francophone feminists <strong>and</strong> women’s groups to <strong>the</strong> Bélanger-Campeau<br />
Commission made clear, by <strong>the</strong> 1990s <strong>the</strong> Quebec francophone movement was<br />
largely, if not universally, supportive of a sovereigntist position.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Accord<br />
<strong>The</strong> threat of ano<strong>the</strong>r referendum on sovereignty in Quebec <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> civil<br />
disturbances surrounding aboriginal l<strong>and</strong> claims led to renewed efforts to<br />
277
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
reform <strong>the</strong> constitutional order in what has been called <strong>the</strong> “Canada round” of<br />
negotiations leading up to <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord. To <strong>the</strong> surprise of many,<br />
most elements of <strong>the</strong> women’s movement united in opposition to <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Accord, although most women of <strong>the</strong> political class supported<br />
it. NAC organized ano<strong>the</strong>r, smaller women’s constitutional conference, in<br />
which fifty major groups took part, including <strong>the</strong> FFQ, <strong>the</strong> FNFCF, <strong>the</strong><br />
National Organization of Immigrant <strong>and</strong> Visible Minority Women, <strong>the</strong><br />
Business <strong>and</strong> Professional Women’s organizations <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> NWAC (NAC,<br />
1991).<br />
Opposition to <strong>the</strong> Accord was directed at both process <strong>and</strong> substance. One<br />
dem<strong>and</strong> was for a “full seat at <strong>the</strong> constitutional table for aboriginal women,<br />
including NWAC <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> National Métis Women’s Association (NWMA),”<br />
(NAC, 1991:2). Substantive changes dem<strong>and</strong>ed included “full protection of<br />
equality rights for aboriginal women”; “racially representative gender equality<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Senate”; a “political accord” to establish “proportional representation in<br />
<strong>the</strong> House of Commons” within two years; proper protection from diminution<br />
for equality <strong>and</strong> language rights; <strong>and</strong> a regime of asymmetrical federalism<br />
which would require <strong>the</strong> federal government “to spend on social programs<br />
outside Quebec” <strong>and</strong> would prevent opt-outs from new social programs or <strong>the</strong><br />
“devolution of labour market training, immigration <strong>and</strong> culture” to <strong>the</strong><br />
provinces, except for Quebec. (NAC, 1991:2) Although women of <strong>the</strong> political<br />
class <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> media attempted to discredit NAC’s opposition (Vienneau, 1992;<br />
<strong>La</strong>framboise, 1992), it quickly became apparent that most women’s groups<br />
had too many concerns about <strong>the</strong> possible impact of <strong>the</strong> Accord to vote “yes.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> extensive decentralization envisioned in <strong>the</strong> Accord posed problems for<br />
women outside of Quebec for reasons which I have already outlined. A<br />
justiciable social charter, which could have allayed some of <strong>the</strong> fears of women<br />
about a more decentralized federation, was watered down into an<br />
unenforceable statement of intent. NAC’s decision to oppose <strong>the</strong> Accord<br />
reflected <strong>the</strong> concerns of its most vulnerable members, minority, marginalized<br />
<strong>and</strong> non-status aboriginal women in particular, who feared <strong>the</strong> dilution of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> rights <strong>and</strong> loss of strong programs of support guaranteed by <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
government wherever <strong>the</strong>y might live. And it was feared that decentralization<br />
would mean that federal funding of movement groups would be withdrawn<br />
even fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>and</strong> would not be replaced by provincial funding in most cases.<br />
Some women of <strong>the</strong> political class were particularly offended by opposition to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Accord <strong>and</strong> NAC’s support for <strong>the</strong> NWAC position. <strong>The</strong> Inuit Women’s<br />
Association (Pauktuutit) was represented on <strong>the</strong> Inuit “Yes” Committee <strong>and</strong><br />
Inuit believed <strong>the</strong>ir women leaders had acted to protect women’s<br />
constitutional rights (Moss, 1992:2,3). Political women of all parties urged<br />
women’s groups to be “realistic” <strong>and</strong> to accept <strong>the</strong> accord in a spirit of<br />
compromise. But <strong>the</strong>y were no more persuasive than <strong>the</strong>ir male colleagues.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> referendum debate, <strong>the</strong> Canadian women’s movement came to be<br />
recognized as a significant player in Canadian constitutional politics.<br />
Although women’s concerns were still often treated dismissively, it was now<br />
clear after a decade of effort that <strong>the</strong>re were distinctive women’s concerns.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re were also substantial gains made in this process for <strong>the</strong> women’s<br />
movement. English-Canadian feminists, in developing <strong>the</strong>ir new “three<br />
nations” constitutional vision, came to underst<strong>and</strong> collective rights better.<br />
Indeed, feminists of both majority cultures came to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> hurts of<br />
racism, ablism <strong>and</strong> homophobia more clearly. Many bridges were built,<br />
278
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
reducing <strong>the</strong> fragmentation of <strong>the</strong> movement which, in 1993, is stronger than it<br />
has ever been.<br />
Conclusions<br />
<strong>The</strong> outcome of this decade of women’s involvement in constitutional politics<br />
remains unclear as I write. It is possible that women in Quebec <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> First<br />
Nations will both seek <strong>and</strong> achieve greater autonomy, even sovereignty, in <strong>the</strong><br />
future. But it is also clear, as Linda Trimble argues, that “women, <strong>and</strong><br />
especially marginalized women, need power to make <strong>the</strong>ir interests<br />
interesting” (1991:90). And it is clear to all elements of <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
movement that we have more power when we can co-operate in one ano<strong>the</strong>r’s<br />
projects. <strong>Constitution</strong>al politics was not an arena women chose to enter, at<br />
least in part because of its potential for conflict within <strong>the</strong> movement. While<br />
feminist leaders <strong>and</strong> lawyers (especially of <strong>the</strong> majoritarian cultures) have<br />
gained more profile, it is not clear that ordinary women have yet gained enough<br />
power to make <strong>the</strong>ir interests “interesting” enough to keep <strong>the</strong>m “on <strong>the</strong> table”<br />
when <strong>the</strong> final round of constitutional bargaining comes around again. Nor<br />
have women yet gained <strong>the</strong> clout to enforce on elites a more open process in<br />
which women can participate effectively.<br />
Francophone feminists in Quebec with <strong>the</strong>ir project of a society in which<br />
women’s powers <strong>and</strong> vision are fully integrated have set us on <strong>the</strong> path of<br />
constitutional transformation, ra<strong>the</strong>r than just reform. Aboriginal women with<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir often conflicting views challenge us to think of rights regimes which can<br />
encompass both individual <strong>and</strong> collective rights. Majoritarian feminists are<br />
learning to hear <strong>and</strong> respond to <strong>the</strong> constitutional needs of minority <strong>and</strong><br />
marginalized women. <strong>The</strong> past decade of engagement by progressive<br />
Canadian women in constitutional politics was possible because of <strong>the</strong><br />
movement’s strength, flexibility <strong>and</strong> energy. It is also true, however, that<br />
involvement in constitutional politics has streng<strong>the</strong>ned <strong>and</strong> energized <strong>the</strong><br />
movement fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>and</strong> has been <strong>the</strong> catalyst for a quantum leap in <strong>the</strong><br />
movement’s intellectual flexibility.<br />
Notes<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> author wishes to acknowledge <strong>the</strong> financial support of <strong>the</strong> Social Science <strong>and</strong><br />
Humanities Research Council which permitted <strong>the</strong> conduct of this research.<br />
2. See for example, Kenneth Karst, “Paths to Belonging: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> Cultural<br />
Identity.” North Carolina <strong>La</strong>w Review, 64 (January, 198 ): 303-77. <strong>The</strong> ideal of <strong>the</strong><br />
disembodied constitutional citizen, however, is relatively new with modern liberalism.<br />
Certainly Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hegel <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs knew women could not be citizens<br />
because of <strong>the</strong>ir sex/gender characteristics.<br />
3. I introduce this distinction between majoritarian <strong>and</strong> minority feminists in “Notes Toward a<br />
Political <strong>The</strong>ory of Sex <strong>and</strong> Power” (forthcoming 1993). In it, I <strong>the</strong>orize that women <strong>and</strong><br />
men of secure, dominant cultures who have access to state instruments (i.e., media, schools)<br />
to protect <strong>the</strong>ir community identity underst<strong>and</strong> reproduction <strong>and</strong> its links to political power<br />
differently than members of threatened, minority communities.<br />
4. <strong>The</strong> newspapers surveyed were Broadside, Cayenne, Herizons, <strong>La</strong> Vie En Rose, <strong>The</strong> Emily,<br />
<strong>The</strong> Womanist, NAC Memo,Status <strong>and</strong> Feminist Action. My thanks to Marcella Munro for<br />
her assistance in this survey. For <strong>the</strong> views in Quebec, I relied more heavily on <strong>the</strong> views of<br />
feminist scholars. With <strong>the</strong> assistance of such scholars as Micheline Dumont <strong>and</strong> Micheline<br />
de Sève, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> staff of <strong>the</strong> Canadian Research Institute for <strong>the</strong> Advancement of Women<br />
(CRIAW), FFQ publications <strong>and</strong> briefs were located. My thanks to Dorine Chalifoux who<br />
undertook this research <strong>and</strong> precised translations.<br />
279
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
5. I was parliamentarian for NAC (an umbrella organization of 500-600 women’s groups)<br />
during <strong>the</strong> 1980s. I also attended women’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al conferences <strong>and</strong> meetings <strong>and</strong> was<br />
invited to present briefs as an “expert” before <strong>the</strong> Boyer Committee.<br />
6. Many First Nations traditionalists <strong>and</strong> sovereigntists reject altoge<strong>the</strong>r a rights-based<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing of <strong>the</strong> relationship between individual <strong>and</strong> collectivity. I use <strong>the</strong> term “rights”<br />
here only to aid underst<strong>and</strong>ing.<br />
7. For example, <strong>the</strong> Quebec government eventually stopped enforcing <strong>the</strong> old criminal code<br />
sections concerning abortion. <strong>The</strong> federal government jailed Dr. Henry Morgentaler after<br />
Quebec juries acquitted him. To Anglo-Canadian feminists, this was evidence that<br />
governments are patriarchal. To Francophone feminists in Quebec, it was evidence that <strong>the</strong><br />
federal government had over-ruled a more progressive Quebec government. Eventually, <strong>the</strong><br />
law was struck down under <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> Canada currently has no criminal law concerning<br />
abortion.<br />
8. Throughout <strong>the</strong> decade, NAC dem<strong>and</strong>ed longer hearings, constitutional conferences,<br />
constituent assemblies <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> official representation of women as women at <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional table. NAC opposed <strong>the</strong> national referendum process because of <strong>the</strong> absence<br />
of strict spending limits based on <strong>the</strong> experience of <strong>the</strong> free trade election in 1988, in which<br />
<strong>the</strong> business lobby, unregulated by <strong>the</strong> electoral spending limits because of a court decision,<br />
poured huge sums of money into a last minute media blitz.<br />
9. This mattered to Quebec feminists in part because <strong>the</strong> federal government had rejected “le<br />
principe du divorce à l’amiable” while <strong>the</strong> provincial government was not opposed<br />
(<strong>La</strong>moureux, 1991).<br />
10. Women’s dependent mobility when in relationships, while no longer having <strong>the</strong> force of law,<br />
is re-inforced by <strong>the</strong> fact that women earn only two-thirds of men’s wages on average. Hence<br />
even an egalitarian family often can’t choose to follow <strong>the</strong> wife’s work.<br />
11. Geographically organized electoral systems disadvantage “interests” <strong>and</strong> groups which are<br />
geographically dispersed <strong>and</strong> reward those which are geographically concentrated.<br />
12. Women are now about 14% of both <strong>the</strong> elected House <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> appointed Senate. <strong>The</strong>y are<br />
represented at slightly higher rates in provinces like Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia <strong>and</strong><br />
P.E.I. Two of <strong>the</strong> nine members of <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court are currently women. Nowhere do<br />
<strong>the</strong>y constitute a critical mass, which is usually viewed as 35-40%, except in <strong>the</strong> Ontario<br />
cabinet.<br />
13. <strong>The</strong> lack of legitimacy of political parties, <strong>the</strong> well-documented gender gap on many issues<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> demonstrated differences among women which are, none<strong>the</strong>less, not <strong>the</strong> same as <strong>the</strong><br />
differences among men (regionalism, e.g.) all challenge <strong>the</strong>se views.<br />
14. Aboriginal leaders faced similar problems as <strong>the</strong>y attempted to insert <strong>the</strong> issues of selfgovernment<br />
<strong>and</strong> race into a discourse entirely organized around <strong>the</strong> dualism of “<strong>the</strong> founding<br />
nations.”<br />
15. <strong>The</strong> original Ad Hoc group also included a number of “ordinary” women in Ottawa who put<br />
toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> original conference. Strategy decisions, however, were taken by <strong>the</strong> Torontobased<br />
group <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> parliament hill “politicos.”<br />
16. Only <strong>the</strong>se women are usefully described as “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Canadians”; a concept has been used to<br />
described all women by some constitutional commentators, following Alan Cairns (1988,<br />
e.g.).<br />
Bibliography<br />
Primary Sources<br />
Basseletti, Teresa <strong>and</strong> Jacques Mehu. 1991 “Considérations inopportunes sur l’exclusion de la<br />
population immigrée des gr<strong>and</strong>s débats de la société québécoise,” in Myreille St-Onge, ed.,<br />
L’Avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec vu par des groupes de femmes. Québec: Le<br />
GREMF: 25-38.<br />
Bayevsky, Anne F. 1992 “<strong>The</strong> Effect of Aboriginal Self-Government on <strong>the</strong> Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms<br />
of Women.” Typescript dated 25 September.<br />
Bégin, Martine. 1991 “L’autonomie des femmes — l’autonomie du Québec,” in St-Onge: 19-21.<br />
Bonenfant, Claire. 1991a “<strong>La</strong> Fédération des femmes du Québec devant la Commission sur<br />
l’avenir politique du Québec,” in St-Onge: 5-18.<br />
——. 1991b “Présentation de notre mémoire à la commission Bélanger-Campeau,” Le féminisme<br />
en revue, Vol. 4, No. 2: 3.<br />
280
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
Brodsy, Gwen <strong>and</strong> Shelagh Day. 1989 <strong>La</strong> <strong>Charte</strong> canadienne et les droits des femmes : progrès ou<br />
recul? Ottawa, CCCSF.<br />
Busque, Ginette <strong>and</strong> Gingras, Anne-Marie. 1987 “Extraits d’une lettre au Premier ministre Brian<br />
Mulroney sur Le <strong>La</strong>c Meech et les femmes,” <strong>La</strong> petite presse, Newsletter of <strong>the</strong> Fédération<br />
des femmes québécoise, June.<br />
<strong>Conseil</strong> du statut de la femme. 1990. Les femmes, ça compte. Québec.<br />
CSN. 1990 Mémoire soumis à la Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec.<br />
November.<br />
Dumont, Micheline. 1991 L’Expérience historique des femmes dans le présent débat<br />
constitutionel. Text presented to <strong>the</strong> Bélanger-Campeau Commission. January.<br />
Fédération des femmes du Québec. 1987 Presentation of <strong>the</strong> FFQ to <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee of <strong>the</strong><br />
Senate <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> House of Commons on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Accord of 1987. (transl.) Feminist<br />
perspectives féministes No. 12a. CRIAW, Ottawa.<br />
——-. 1990 Mémoire présenté à la Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du<br />
Québec. November.<br />
——-. 1991 Le féminisme en revue : Colloque 1991 — L’Avenir des femmes dans un Québec en<br />
devenir. Vol. 4, No. 2.<br />
——-. 1992 Pour un Québec féminin pluriel : Dossier de consultation. March.<br />
Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises. 1990 <strong>La</strong> Commission sur l’avenir<br />
politique et constitutionnel du Québec. November.<br />
——-. 1992 <strong>The</strong> Voice of Francophone Women Living in Minority Situations in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Debate: An Analysis of <strong>the</strong> Federal Proposals — Shaping Canada’s Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
January.<br />
Genaille, Sheila D. 1992 “Métis women endorse agreement.” Letter to <strong>the</strong> editor, Globe <strong>and</strong> Mail,<br />
30 September.<br />
Gingras, Anne-Marie. 1987 “<strong>La</strong> petite histoire politique du lac Meech,” <strong>La</strong> petite presse.<br />
Newsletter of <strong>the</strong> Fédération des femmes du Québec, September.<br />
Kuptana, Rosemarie. 1992 “Outst<strong>and</strong>ing Inuit Issues re: Charlottetown Accord <strong>and</strong> Gender<br />
Equality under <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>,” memo to Inuit Tapirasat of Canada Board of Directors.<br />
October.<br />
<strong>La</strong>framboise, Donna. 1992 “National group no longer speaks for women,” Toronto Star. D,21<br />
September.<br />
<strong>La</strong>joie, Andrée. 1991 Réponses aux questionx posées par la Commission sur l’avenir politique et<br />
constitutionnel du Québec. Text presented to <strong>the</strong> Bélanger-Campeau Commission. January.<br />
<strong>La</strong>moureux, Diane. 1991b Réponses aux questions posées par la Commission sur l’avenir<br />
politique et constitutionnel du Québec. Text presented to <strong>the</strong> Bélanger-Campeau<br />
Commission. January.<br />
Legault, Ginette. 1991 “Le projet de société féministe et l’option souverainiste : un débat à<br />
poursuivre,” Le féminisme en revue, Vol. 4, No. 2.<br />
Moss, Wendy. 1992 “<strong>The</strong> Role of Inuit Women in Negotiating <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord.”<br />
Undated release.<br />
NAC. 1991 Response to Federal <strong>Constitution</strong>al Proposals, 25 October.<br />
——-. 1991 A Draft Women’s <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, 4 November.<br />
——-. 1992. Conclusions of Women’s <strong>Constitution</strong>al Conference. 25 August.<br />
Réseau d’Action et d’Information pour les Femmes (RAIF). 1987 L’Entente constitutionnelle de<br />
1987 et les femmes. September.<br />
Roberts, Barbara. 1988 “Smooth Sailing or Storm Warning? Canadian <strong>and</strong> Québec Women’s<br />
Groups <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord,” Feminist Perspectives, 12a CRIAW.<br />
Stacey-Moore, Gail. 1991 “Aboriginal Women, Self Government, <strong>the</strong> Canadian <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights<br />
<strong>and</strong> Freedoms, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1991 Canada Package on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>.” Text for an Address to <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian <strong>La</strong>bour Congress, Ottawa, 31 December.<br />
Vienneau, David. 1992 “Many Women just saying no to No” Toronto Star, O1F, 16, 10 October.<br />
Secondary Sources<br />
Andrew, Carolyn. 1984 “Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Welfare State”, Canadian Journal of Political Science<br />
17, no. 4.<br />
Ayim, Maryann. 1980 “Review of <strong>the</strong> Report of <strong>the</strong> Taskforce of National Unity,” Atlantis 5:2<br />
Bashevkin, Sylvia. 1985 Toeing <strong>the</strong> Lines. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.<br />
Begin, Monique. 1992 “<strong>The</strong> Royal Commission on <strong>the</strong> Status of Women in Canada: Twenty<br />
Years <strong>La</strong>ter,” in Constance Backhouse <strong>and</strong> David Flaherty (eds.) Challenging Times: <strong>The</strong><br />
Women’s Movement in Canada <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> United States, McGill-Queen’s Press.<br />
Black, Naomi. 1992 “Ripples in <strong>the</strong> Second Wave: Comparing <strong>the</strong> Contemporary Movement in<br />
Canada <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> United States,” in Backhouse <strong>and</strong> Flaherty.<br />
Busque, Ginette. 1991 “Why Women Should Care About <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform,” in David<br />
Schneiderman (ed.), Conversations Among Friends/Entre Amis: Proceedings of an<br />
Interdisciplinary Conference on Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform, University of Alberta<br />
Centre for <strong>Constitution</strong>al Studies.<br />
281
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Cairns, Alan. 1988 “<strong>The</strong> Limited <strong>Constitution</strong>al Vision of Meech <strong>La</strong>ke,” in K.E. Swinton <strong>and</strong> C.J.<br />
Rogerson (eds.) Competing <strong>Constitution</strong>al Visions: <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord. Carswell.<br />
Clark, Lorenne. 1991 “Reconceptualizing <strong>the</strong> Agenda for Reform,” in Schneiderman.<br />
Clio Collective. 1987 Québec Women: A History, transl. Roger Gannon <strong>and</strong> Rosalind Gill, <strong>the</strong><br />
Women’s Press.<br />
Cole, Susan. 1987 “Meech <strong>La</strong>ke: Troubled Waters,” Broadside, Vol. 9, No. 2, November.<br />
Collin, Françoise. 1986 “Introduction,” Cahiers du GRIF 33.<br />
Day, Shelagh. 1991 “<strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform: Canada’s Equality Crisis,” in Schneiderman.<br />
Delphy, Christine. 1977 “Nos amis et nous,” Questions féministes 1.<br />
De Sève, Micheline. 1991 “<strong>The</strong> Perspectives of Québec Feminists,” in Backhouse <strong>and</strong> Flaherty.<br />
Dumont, Micheline. 1992 “<strong>The</strong> Origins of <strong>the</strong> Women’s Movement in Québec,” in Backhouse <strong>and</strong><br />
Flaherty.<br />
Ellis, Megan. 1986 “New <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>, Same Old Story,” Kinesis, November.<br />
Ellis <strong>and</strong> Findlay. 1986 “Hey It’s 1986! Aren’t We Equal Yet?” Kinesis, November.<br />
Eliot, Sarah. 1986 “Competing for Equality,” Broadside, Vol. 7, No. 6, April.<br />
Gidengil, Elisabeth. 1992 “A Different Voice? Gender <strong>and</strong> Political Behavior,” paper presented at<br />
<strong>the</strong> Annual Meeting of <strong>the</strong> Canadian Political Science Association, Charlottetown, P.E.I.,<br />
June.<br />
Greckol, Sheila. 1991 “<strong>The</strong> Pursuit of Equality for Women,” in Schneiderman.<br />
Greshner, Donna. 1991 “Conversations: A Talking Circle,” in Schneiderman.<br />
Hall, Tony. 1992 “<strong>The</strong>oretical Discourse in Native Studies,” ACS Newsletter, Vol. 14, No. 1,<br />
Spring.<br />
Hastings <strong>and</strong> <strong>La</strong>wrence. 1981 “Valentines Day Revenge,” Broadside, March.<br />
Hosek, Chaviva. 1983 “Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Process,” in Keith Banting <strong>and</strong> Richard<br />
Simeon, And No One Cheered: <strong>Federalism</strong>, Democracy <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> Act, Methuen.<br />
<strong>La</strong>moureux, Diane. 1991a “Une majorité encore oubliée,” in Schneiderman.<br />
——-. 1990 “Le mouvement des femmes : entre l’intégration et l’autonomie,” Canadian Issues,<br />
<strong>The</strong>mes canadiens 12.<br />
——-. 1989 Citoyennes ? Femmes, droit de vote et démocratie. Éditions du remue-ménage.<br />
<strong>La</strong>nge, Lynda. “Rousseau: Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> General Will,” in Lynda <strong>La</strong>nge <strong>and</strong> Loreern M.G.<br />
Clark, eds. <strong>The</strong> Sexism of Social <strong>and</strong> Political <strong>The</strong>ory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.<br />
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1990 Continental Divide: <strong>The</strong> Values <strong>and</strong> Institutions of <strong>the</strong> United<br />
States <strong>and</strong> Canada. Routledge.<br />
Maillé, Chantal. 1991a “<strong>The</strong> Women’s Health Movement in Québec Society: An Analysis for <strong>the</strong><br />
Purpose of <strong>Constitution</strong>al Debate,” in Schneiderman.<br />
——-. 1991b “Femmes et politique: et pourquoi pas une constitution enchâssant notre droit à la<br />
représentation politique?” Le féminisme en revue, Vol. 4, No. 2.<br />
——-. 1991c “<strong>La</strong> FFQ peut-elle prendre position sur l’avenir politique du Québec sans tomber<br />
dans la partisanerie?” Le féminisme en revue, Vol. 4, No. 2.<br />
Maracle, Lee. 1991 “Conversations: A Talking Circle,” in Schneiderman.<br />
McLellan, Anne. 1991 “Women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Process of <strong>Constitution</strong> Making,” in Schneiderman.<br />
Monture-Okanee, Patricia. 1992 “<strong>The</strong> Violence We Women Do: A First Nations View,” in<br />
Backhouse <strong>and</strong> Flaherty.<br />
——-. 1991 “Seeking My Reflection: A Comment on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Renovation,” in<br />
Schneiderman.<br />
O’Brien, Mary. 1981 “<strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> in Context,” Broadside, Vol. 2, No. 4, February.<br />
O’Leary, Véronique et Louise Toupin. 1982 Québécoises debouttes! Montreal: Tome I. Éditions<br />
du remue-ménage.<br />
O’Neill, Brenda. 1992 “Gender Gaps in Opinion: <strong>The</strong> Canadian Situation,” paper presented at <strong>the</strong><br />
Annual General Meeting of <strong>the</strong> Canadian Political Science Association, University of Prince<br />
Edward Isl<strong>and</strong>, Charlottetown, P.E.I., June.<br />
Okin, Susan. 1978 Women in Western Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.<br />
——-. 1986 “Are Our <strong>The</strong>ories of Justice Gender-Neutral?,” in Robert Fullinwider <strong>and</strong> Claudia<br />
Mills, eds. <strong>The</strong> Civil Rights. Totowa, N.J: Rowman <strong>and</strong> Littlefield.<br />
Pateman, Carole. 1989 <strong>The</strong> Disorder of Women. Cambridge: Polity/Basil Blackwell.<br />
——-. 1988 <strong>The</strong> Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.<br />
Payette, Lise. 1982 Le pouvoir? Connais pas! Québec-Amérique.<br />
Paquerot, Sylvie. 1991 “Vision féministe de la société québécoise,” Le féminisme en revue, Vol.<br />
4, No. 2.<br />
Razack, Sherene. 1991 “Issues of Difference in <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform: Say Goodbye to <strong>the</strong><br />
Universal Woman,” in Schneiderman.<br />
Roberts, Barbara. 1989 Beau fixe ou nuages à l’horizon? L’Accord du lac Meech jugé par les<br />
féministes du Québec et du Canada. Ottawa, ICREF/CRIAW, Collection “Perspectives<br />
féministes.”<br />
Tardy, Évelyne. “Autour du débat constitutionnel : quelques aspects économiques,” Le féminisme<br />
en revue, Vol. 4, No. 2.<br />
——-. “Parlons stratégies,” Le féminisme en revue, Vol. 4, No. 2.<br />
282
<strong>The</strong> Canadian Women’s Movement <strong>and</strong> a Changing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Order<br />
Trimble, Linda. 1991 “<strong>Federalism</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Feminization of Poverty <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>,” in<br />
Schneiderman.<br />
Vickers Jill. 1992a “<strong>The</strong> Intellectual Origins of <strong>the</strong> Women’s Movements in Canada,” in<br />
Backhouse <strong>and</strong> Flaherty.<br />
——-. 1992b “You Can’t Get <strong>The</strong>re From Here: Women <strong>and</strong> Public Policy,” paper delivered at<br />
Memorial University, Newfoundl<strong>and</strong>, January.<br />
——-. 1991a “Why Should Women Care About <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform?,” in Schneiderman.<br />
——-. 1991b “Bending <strong>the</strong> Iron <strong>La</strong>w of Oligarchy: Debates on <strong>the</strong> Feminization of Organization<br />
<strong>and</strong> Political Process in <strong>the</strong> English-Canadian Women’s Movement,” in Jeri Dawn Wine <strong>and</strong><br />
Janice L. Ristock (eds.) Women <strong>and</strong> Social Change: Feminist Activism in Canada. James<br />
Lorimer.<br />
——-. 1986 “Equality-Seeking in a Cold Climate,” in Lynn Smith et.al. (eds.), Righting <strong>the</strong><br />
Balance: Canada’s New Equality Rights. <strong>The</strong> Human Rights Reporter, Inc.<br />
Vickers, Jill, Pauline Rankin <strong>and</strong> Christine Appelle. 1993 Politics As If Women Mattered,<br />
University of Toronto Press.<br />
Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Politics of Difference. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton<br />
University Press.<br />
——-. 1989. “Polity <strong>and</strong> Group Difference: A Critique of <strong>the</strong> Ideal of Universal Citizenship,”<br />
Ethics 99 (January): 250-74.<br />
283
Max Nemni<br />
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec 1<br />
Résumé<br />
Depuis près d’un quart de siècle, l’idée de la sécession du Québec fait partie<br />
du paysage politique canadien. Pour expliquer ce phénomène il est essentiel<br />
d’identifier les effets de l’utilisation du nationalisme à des fins politiques.<br />
C’est dans cet esprit que cette étude analyse la démarche et les travaux d’une<br />
commission mise sur pied par le gouvernement québécois de Robert Bourassa.<br />
Née au lendemain de « l’échec du lac Meech », cette commission fut créée<br />
notamment pour instaurer un rapport de force plus favorable au Québec vis-àvis<br />
du reste du Canada.<br />
On verra que bien que cette commission n’ait pas contribué à accroître les<br />
pouvoirs de négociation du Québec, elle permit au gouvernement Bourassa de<br />
sortir du cul-de-sac politique dans lequel « Meech » l’avait placé. On verra<br />
surtout qu’un des effets les plus marquants de tout ce processus fut le<br />
renforcement de l’idée de sécession au Québec.<br />
Abstract<br />
For almost a quarter of a century, <strong>the</strong> idea of Quebec’s secession has been an<br />
integral part of <strong>the</strong> Canadian political l<strong>and</strong>scape. In order to underst<strong>and</strong> this<br />
phenomenon it is essential to assess <strong>the</strong> use of nationalism for political<br />
purposes.<br />
This study focuses on <strong>the</strong> social <strong>and</strong> political impact of an organism created by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Quebec government of Robert Bourassa. Born as a result of <strong>the</strong> failed<br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, <strong>the</strong> political function of this body was to bolster Quebec’s<br />
negotiating position vis-à-vis <strong>the</strong> rest of Canada.<br />
<strong>The</strong> findings of this study are that while this organism did not streng<strong>the</strong>n<br />
Quebec’s position, it did allow Bourassa’s government to come out of <strong>the</strong><br />
political impasse created by Meech. More importantly, <strong>the</strong> fundamental effect<br />
of this entire process was to bolster <strong>the</strong> idea of secession in Quebec.<br />
<strong>La</strong> menace de la sécession du Québec hante l’univers politique canadien<br />
depuis plus d’un quart de siècle. Or, selon un classement des Nations Unies, le<br />
Canada offre la meilleure qualité de vie du monde. S’il est possible de<br />
comprendre l’émergence de féodalités ethniques qu<strong>and</strong> s’est brisé le joug de<br />
l’ancienne U.R.S.S., on s’explique plus difficilement les déchirements<br />
internes que subit le Canada 2.<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
Après le référendum de mai 1980, où les Québécois dirent « non » à l’option<br />
sécessionniste que leur offrait le Parti québécois, voilà que douze ans plus tard,<br />
en octobre 1992, la question de la place du Québec au sein de la fédération<br />
canadienne a forcé le Canada tout entier à jouer son avenir sur un nouveau<br />
référendum.<br />
Mais avec, cette fois, une différence importante. Alors que jusque-là, le reste<br />
du Canada se dem<strong>and</strong>ait, avec un c<strong>and</strong>ide étonnement, « What does Quebec<br />
want? », c’était maintenant un Québec plein d’assurance qui lançait un double<br />
défi au reste du Canada. Premièrement, sous le titre frondeur Un Québec libre<br />
de ses choix, le Rapport « Allaire » traçait les gr<strong>and</strong>es lignes de la politique<br />
constitutionnelle du Parti libéral du Québec, dirigé par Robert Bourassa. Du<br />
fédéralisme, ce rapport ne retenait guère que le nom en exigeant le transfert<br />
massif de presque tous les pouvoirs du gouvernement central. Ce premier défi<br />
au reste du Canada fut lancé en mars 1991, lors du congrès annuel de ce Parti.<br />
Le deuxième ne tarda pas à venir.<br />
Quelques mois après le 23 juin 1990, date de l’échec de la ronde de<br />
négociations contitutionnelles dite du lac Meech, fut instituée, sous l’autorité<br />
de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec, la Commission sur l’avenir politique et<br />
constitutionnel du Québec. Dotée du vaste m<strong>and</strong>at « d’étudier et d’analyser le<br />
statut politique et constitutionnel du Québec et de formuler à cet égard des<br />
recomm<strong>and</strong>ations », son rapport ne se fit pas attendre. En moins de six mois, la<br />
Commission « Bélanger-Campeau » fit le tour de la question qui divise le<br />
Canada depuis ses premiers jours. Non seulement elle identifia les problèmes,<br />
mais elle édicta un diagnostic radical. Le 27 mars 1991, la Commission<br />
recomm<strong>and</strong>a à l’Assemblée nationale d’adopter une loi prévoyant la tenue<br />
d’un référendum sur la souveraineté du Québec à une date bien précise (entre<br />
le 8 et le 22 juin 1992 ou entre le 12 et le 26 octobre 1992). Advenant la victoire<br />
du « oui », cette loi prévoyait, avec la même précision, une date d’accession<br />
du Québec à l’indépendance, soit un an jour pour jour après la tenue du<br />
référendum. Le deuxième défi était lancé.<br />
Cependant, entre août et octobre 1992, le Parti libéral de Bourassa changea<br />
radicalement de cap. Reniant sa propre conception de la place du Québec au<br />
sein du Canada, définie dans le Rapport Allaire devenu la politique officielle<br />
du Parti, ainsi que la loi 150 qu’il avait fait adopter par l’Assemblée nationale à<br />
la suite du rapport de la Commission Bélanger-Campeau (qu’on appellera ici<br />
la « Commission »), le gouvernement Bourassa fit voter presque unanimement<br />
par ses membres, lors du congrès annuel d’août 1992, une résolution dictant la<br />
tenue d’un référendum sur un renouvellement relativement mineur du cadre<br />
fédéral existant, et non plus sur la souveraineté comme l’exigeait la loi 150.<br />
<strong>La</strong> preuve semblait ainsi faite que la sécession n’était qu’une menace, qu’un<br />
élément stratégique de négociation du gouvernement Bourassa. Cette<br />
stratégie, dite du « couteau sur la gorge », avait d’ailleurs été promue par de<br />
gr<strong>and</strong>es personnalités québécoises, dont Léon Dion. C’est en effet lui qui, lors<br />
de la présentation de son mémoire à la Commission le 12 décembre 1990,<br />
affirmait qu’il n’y avait qu’une façon de faire bouger le « Canada anglais » :<br />
« Il ne cèdera — et cela même n’est pas assuré — que s’il a le couperet sur la<br />
gorge3.» Onze mois plus tard, après avoir pris connaissance du texte de l’entente<br />
constitutionnelle négociée à Charlottetown, Léon Dion exprima son<br />
étonnement devant l’échec de la stratégie qu’il avait promue :<br />
286
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
Ici plane un mystère qu’il faudra dissiper un jour... Les Québécois<br />
avaient procuré à leur premier ministre un rapport de force à triple<br />
ressort en 1991 — la Commission Bélanger-Campeau, la loi 150 et le<br />
programme du PLQ (Rapport Allaire).... Cette force qui était entre<br />
ses mains, pourquoi l’a-t-il laissée s’échapper 4 ?<br />
Ce qui stupéfie cet éminent spécialiste, c’est, à première vue, le fait que le<br />
gouvernement Bourassa ait si mal utilisé un rapport de force qui semblait le<br />
favoriser. Mais au-delà de cet aspect stratégique, ce qui explique cet<br />
étonnement, partagé d’ailleurs par la plupart des spécialistes québécois à<br />
tendance nationaliste, ce fut la minceur des réformes acceptées par le<br />
gouvernement Bourassa eu égard à l’ampleur des dem<strong>and</strong>es « minimales » du<br />
Québec. L’étude de Guy <strong>La</strong>forest, présentée quelques mois avant le dépôt du<br />
rapport de la Commission, illustre bien ces attentes. Ce spécialiste,<br />
représentatif d’un point de vue prédominant alors dans les milieux<br />
intellectuels et politiques du Québec, affirmait en effet que « le régime fédéral<br />
canadien de 1867, partiellement rénové en 1982, a fait faillitte au Québec et ne<br />
peut être regénéré. » Le problème était d’autant plus profond, à ses yeux, que<br />
« l’idée de fédéralisme avait été détruite à tout jamais au Québec depuis<br />
l’échec de Meech5. » C’est ce qui amenait <strong>La</strong>forest à prévoir que le rapport de<br />
la Commission exclurait l’option fédéraliste et exigerait « soit un<br />
réaménagement de type confédéral, soit une forme d’association entre États<br />
souverains6. »<br />
Ainsi, non seulement la réforme du fédéralisme canadien était considérée<br />
comme hautement illusoire, mais la notion même de « fédéralisme » avait,<br />
affirmait-on fréquemment, perdu toute crédibilité au Québec. Tout comme<br />
<strong>La</strong>forest, de nombreux experts québécois à tendance nationaliste percevaient<br />
la Commission à la fois comme l’étape ultime vers la restructuration radicale<br />
de l’espace géopolitique canadien et comme un instrument stratégique en vue<br />
d’atteindre cet objectif. On comprend donc leur déception et leur étonnement<br />
lorsque Bourassa accepta avec enthousiasme l’entente de Charlottetown qu’ils<br />
percevaient au mieux comme un réaménagement mineur du cadre fédéral<br />
existant. D’où le « mystère » évoqué par Dion.<br />
Peut-on élucider ce mystère ou, plus modestement, peut-on soulever quelque<br />
peu le voile qui l’entoure ?<br />
Pour y parvenir, on analysera la démarche ainsi que les travaux de la<br />
Commission Bélanger-Campeau qui était au coeur des négociations<br />
constitutionnelles canadiennes. Ces travaux nous permettront de pénétrer dans<br />
un univers complexe où s’entrecroisent passion et raison. Car pour remplir son<br />
m<strong>and</strong>at qui lui dictait de se prononcer sur « l’avenir constitutionnel du<br />
Québec », cette Commission fonctionna sur deux registres. D’une part, elle<br />
prit le pouls des Québécois et, d’autre part, elle étudia systématiquement<br />
plusieurs aspects fondamentaux des rapports entre le Québec et le reste du<br />
Canada. Ainsi, elle était à la fois une commission d’étude et un forum qui<br />
permit à de nombreux Québécois d’exprimer leurs doléances. Mais avant<br />
d’aborder l’analyse des travaux de cette Commission, il est nécessaire de<br />
décrire brièvement les nombreux documents qu’ils ont engendrés.<br />
On y distingue nettement trois catégories de matériaux. Premièrement, le<br />
rapport final. Il s’agit là d’un texte de 180 pages, signé par tous les membres de<br />
la Commission ainsi que par le premier ministre, Robert Bourassa, et par le<br />
chef de l’opposition officielle, Jacques Parizeau. C’est à ce document<br />
287
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
ambivalent, recomm<strong>and</strong>ant soit le référendum sur la souveraineté, soit le<br />
renouvellement en profondeur du cadre fédéral, que sera consacrée la première<br />
partie de ce travail intitulée : « Le rapport Bélanger-Campeau et la stratégie du<br />
gouvernement Bourassa ».<br />
Une deuxième catégorie de matériaux comprend les mémoires, soumis à titre<br />
privé tant par des particuliers que par des associations de tous genres. Ces<br />
quelque 600 documents, qui totalisent environ 15 000 pages, représentent le<br />
produit final de la vaste consultation populaire mise en branle par le<br />
gouvernement Bourassa. Bien qu’exprimant les intérêts de leurs auteurs et que<br />
l’option fédéraliste y soit parfois préconisée, c’est dans ces mémoires qu’on<br />
trouve généralement l’expression des sentiments sur lesquels s’appuie le<br />
projet sécessionniste. Nous les étudierons dans la deuxième partie de ce travail<br />
intitulée : « <strong>La</strong> voix des citoyens ».<br />
Finalement, la troisième catégorie de matériaux qu’a fait naître la Commission<br />
comprend exclusivement des documents soumis par des experts. C’est<br />
généralement là qu’on trouve des analyses approfondies de diverses questions<br />
relatives aux rapports entre le Québec et ses voisins advenant l’accession à<br />
l’indépendance ou tout autre statut constitutionnel. Nous procédérons à l’étude<br />
de ces matériaux dans la troisième et dernière partie de ce travail intitulée:«<strong>La</strong><br />
voix des experts ».<br />
Cette examen en trois temps des travaux de la Commission tente de mieux<br />
cerner l’interaction complexe des facteurs émotifs et rationnels autour<br />
desquels se construit et se déconstruit depuis le 23 juin 1990, date de l’échec de<br />
la ronde constitutionnelle du lac Meech7, l’idée de sécession du Québec.<br />
Penchons- nous d’abord sur l’aspect stratégique de la démarche de la<br />
Commission en analysant brièvement son rapport final.<br />
Le rapport Bélanger-Campeau et la stratégie du gouvernement<br />
Bourassa<br />
En tant qu’instrument stratégique de négociation, le rapport final étonne par<br />
ses ambiguïtés et ses contradictions. Mais avant de l’analyser, décrivons-le<br />
brièvement.<br />
À part la liste des recomm<strong>and</strong>ations et les annexes incluant divers addenda des<br />
commissionnaires exprimant leurs réserves, ce rapport comprend en tout sept<br />
chapitres. De ceux-là, un présente les membres, un autre énonce le m<strong>and</strong>at de<br />
la Commission et deux autres sont consacrés à l’introduction et à la<br />
conclusion. Les éléments de fond se trouvent donc tous dans les chapitres 4, 5<br />
et 6, soit une cinquantaine de pages en tout, en gros caractères et à double<br />
interligne. Que disent ces trois chapitres ?<br />
Le chapitre 4, « Le Québec : une société moderne, une identité propre », brosse<br />
un tableau presque idyllique du dynamisme de la société québécoise<br />
contemporaine. L’idée maîtresse de ce chapitre est que, lorsqu’il l’a voulu, le<br />
Québec a réussi à devenir une société prospère, moderne et cultivée. On lit, en<br />
effet, qu’à partir des années soixante, les Québécois « marquent un tournant<br />
dans la prise en main de leur développement8 » et qu’en conséquence, « le<br />
Québec a donné le coup de barre nécessaire à l’émergence d’une société<br />
moderne, complète et ouverte sur le monde9. » On souligne de plus que « la<br />
place du français dans les communications, le travail, le commerce et les<br />
affaires est ainsi réaffermie et élargie10. »<br />
288
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
Ce chapitre étonne. On se serait attendu à ce qu’un rapport recomm<strong>and</strong>ant un<br />
référendum sur la sécession du Québec mette en relief les insuffisances du<br />
système politique actuel. Mais au lieu d’un constat d’échec, on y trouve une<br />
image reluisante des exploits du Québec sur tous les plans, allant de<br />
l’économie jusqu’à la langue et la culture en passant par le rôle bénéfique du<br />
gouvernement provincial. Ce chapitre surprend d’autant plus qu’au-delà de ce<br />
beau portrait du Québec et de ses institutions, on y trouve également un éloge,<br />
plus modéréré il est vrai, du cadre institutionnel actuel considéré dans sa<br />
globalité.<br />
Contrairement à ce qu’on lit à la page 12 de l’introduction de ce rapport, l’acte<br />
confédératif de 1867 n’est pas présenté ici selon la perspective nationaliste<br />
usuelle d’un « pacte entre deux peuples », mais plutôt à la manière<br />
« fédéraliste », c’est-à-dire comme un acte visant la création d’un « espace<br />
économique qui devait consolider les liens entre les quatre anciennes<br />
colonies11. » Quelques lignes plus loin, on reconnaît même la nécessité de la<br />
centralisation à Ottawa de certains pouvoirs, idée franchement antinationaliste.<br />
On lit, en effet, que « cet espace initial et son développement<br />
ultérieur... on les doit aussi au fait que la <strong>Constitution</strong> de 1867 accorda au<br />
Parlement fédéral de larges pouvoirs... 12 »<br />
L’étonnement gr<strong>and</strong>it qu<strong>and</strong> on voit quelques paragraphes plus loin la <strong>Charte</strong><br />
canadienne des droits et libertés recevoir sa part de louanges. Comme on le<br />
sait, cette <strong>Charte</strong> constitue une des pièces maîtresses de la <strong>Constitution</strong> de<br />
1982, rapatriée sans le consentement du Québec. C’est d’ailleurs pourquoi elle<br />
est souvent décriée, y compris dans ce rapport, comme étant « dépourvue de<br />
légitimité politique faute d’avoir jamais reçu la pleine et libre adhésion du<br />
Québec13. » Pourtant, à la page 25, on lui reconnaît certains effets heureux,<br />
notamment quant à la transférabilité du droit aux programmes sociaux<br />
fédéraux et à la liberté de circulation des citoyens.<br />
On trouve bien dans ce chapitre quelques critiques du cadre fédéral actuel,<br />
mais dans l’ensemble, on y fait surtout un éloge implicite, et parfois même<br />
explicite, de ce cadre si bien que le message central qui s’en dégage est que le<br />
Québec contemporain se porte très bien. Le lecteur est donc mal préparé à la<br />
mise en accusation du fédéralisme à laquelle se livre le chapitre 5 titré<br />
« L’évolution vers l’impasse ».<br />
Après avoir identifié comme origine de « l’impasse » l’échec de l’accord du lac<br />
Meech, le chapitre 5 lance une affirmation déconcertante. On y lit en effet que<br />
« les réformes majeures mises en oeuvre au Québec pendant les années 1960<br />
ont démontré combien était essentielle la révision du partage des<br />
compétences, rendu problématique par l’évolution du régime fédéral14. » Or,<br />
aucune démonstration n’accompagne cette affirmation. Au contraire, comme<br />
on vient de le voir, le chapitre 4 met en relief le fait que le Québec a<br />
parfaitement réussi son passage à la modernité.<br />
Loin de faire la « démonstration » de la nécessité d’un nouveau partage de<br />
pouvoirs, ce chapitre brosse une large fresque des transformations<br />
constitutionnelles récentes et, surtout, à la page 33, présente une liste assez<br />
brève des effets perçus comme négatifs de ces modifications. On y souligne<br />
deux points. D’abord, la réduction de la compétence du Québec dans la langue<br />
d’enseignement (sans noter la protection correspondante du français à travers<br />
le Canada ni la portée de la clause dérogatoire de la <strong>Charte</strong> fréquemment<br />
utilisée par le gouvernement québécois). On y relève ensuite la perte du droit<br />
de veto du Québec sur les modifications constitutionnelles (sans noter que ce<br />
289
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
« veto », purement conventionnel, n’avait pas été « perdu » mais plutôt « cédé »<br />
par le gouvernement Lévesque avant le rapatriement de la <strong>Constitution</strong> en<br />
1982 dans une manoeuvre politique qui arrangeait son Parti).<br />
Essentiellement, ce chapitre insiste bien plus sur la série de blocages dans les<br />
rondes de négociations subséquentes au rapatriement de la <strong>Constitution</strong> en<br />
1982 que sur la justification d’un nouveau partage de pouvoirs.<br />
Le chapitre 6, dernier des trois chapitres de fond, intitulé « Les voies de<br />
solution », trace dans un premier temps les gr<strong>and</strong>es lignes des exigences<br />
constitutionnelles dites « minimales » pour que le Québec demeure au sein du<br />
Canada. De cette première partie se dégage l’impression très nette que ces<br />
« exigences minimales » sont tellement élevées qu’il est improbable qu’elles<br />
soient acceptées par le reste du Canada. <strong>La</strong> conciliation des attentes du Québec<br />
et des intérêts des autres provinces dans le cadre fédéral actuel « nécessiterait,<br />
affirme-t-on, des efforts considérables de la part des membres de la<br />
fédération15. » Cette idée est soulignée en conclusion où il est noté que « les<br />
attentes de la population sont élevées : elle veut voir le Québec récupérer des<br />
compétences dans tous les secteurs, qu’ils soient du domaine économique,<br />
social ou culturel16. » Une fois cela établi — la légitimité des nombreuses<br />
revendications du Québec et l’improbabilité de leur acceptation par le reste du<br />
Canada —, émerge tout naturellement la deuxième voie de solution :«<strong>La</strong><br />
démarche du Québec vers la souveraineté... qui devrait se fonder sur une<br />
volonté populaire incontestable et clairement exprimée17. »<br />
L’ambiguïté ne cesse de gr<strong>and</strong>ir. Le chapitre 4 montre que le Québec se porte<br />
très bien dans le cadre actuel. Le chapitre 5 affirme, sans aucune<br />
démonstration, que le Québec ne contrôle pas dans le cadre fédéral canadien<br />
les pouvoirs essentiels à son développement. Le chapitre 6 d’un côté br<strong>and</strong>it la<br />
menace de la sécession et de l’autre, il se ravise en évoquant la possibilité<br />
d’une refonte du cadre fédéral actuel. C’est sur ces bases que repose la<br />
conclusion du rapport présentée au chapitre 7. Conclusion qui, comme on peut<br />
s’y attendre, s’avère tout aussi ambivalente que le raisonnement sur lequel elle<br />
s’appuie. En effet, la Commission affirme que : « deux voies seulement<br />
s’offrent au Québec : d’une part, une nouvelle et ultime tentative de redéfinir<br />
son statut au sein du régime fédéral et, d’autre part, l’accession à la<br />
souveraineté. »<br />
Ainsi, derrière l’idée maîtresse, et ambivalente, des « deux voies ultimes » se<br />
dessine en filigrane l’idée du renforcement du pouvoir de négociation du<br />
Québec. Étonnamment, le rapport trahit sa propre fonction stratégique dans un<br />
passage en conclusion où l’on affirme que, tout en se préparant pour la<br />
sécession, le Québec devrait mettre « à profit le temps dont il dispose et les<br />
arrangements en vigueur pour étayer son dossier tout en renforçant son<br />
pouvoir de négociation19. »<br />
Il est important de noter ici que ces recomm<strong>and</strong>ations furent explicitement<br />
endossées par le premier ministre lui-même et par son ministre délégué aux<br />
Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes, Gil Rémillard. Dans une lettre<br />
intégrée au premier des deux addenda accompagnant le rapport, MM.<br />
Bourassa et Rémillard affirmaient qu’à « la croisée des chemins », le Québec<br />
était « non seulement... libre de ses choix mais... maintenant plus en mesure de<br />
les apprécier et de les arrêter grâce au rapport que nous recevons aujourd’hui. »<br />
Ces choix étaient d’après eux bien clairs:«Cerapport nous confirme que deux<br />
avenues doivent être considérées... : un réaménagement en profondeur du<br />
système fédéral actuel ou la souveraineté du Québec. Les autres solutions ne<br />
290
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
sauraient répondre aux besoins et aux aspirations de la société québécoise 20. »<br />
Cette notion des « deux voies»—leréaménagement en profondeur du cadre<br />
fédéral ou la sécession du Québec — fut reprise dans le cadre de la loi 150<br />
adoptée par l’Assemblée nationale selon la recomm<strong>and</strong>ation de la<br />
Commission. En effet, cette loi recomm<strong>and</strong>ait d’une part un référendum sur la<br />
souveraineté, suivi de l’accession proprement dite au statut d’Etat<br />
indépendant, et d’autre part l’institution d’une commission parlementaire<br />
spéciale « ayant pour m<strong>and</strong>at d’apprécier toute offre de nouveau partenariat de<br />
nature constitutionnelle faite par le gouvernement du Canada21. »<br />
Ainsi, le rapport de la Commission, tout comme l’interprétation qu’en<br />
faisaient Bourassa et Rémillard tout comme la loi 150 qui en découlait étaient<br />
marqués d’une double ambiguïté. Premièrement, on présentait une image<br />
contradictoire de la place du Québec au sein du Canada. En effet, alors qu’on<br />
affirmait que le cadre institutionnel actuel convenait parfaitement au Québec,<br />
on affirmait en même temps qu’il était nécessaire de s’en défaire.<br />
Deuxièmement, les « voies de solution » reflétaient cette même contradiction.<br />
Tout en semblant s’engager résolument sur la voie de la sécession, le Québec<br />
offrait au reste du Canada une dernière et « ultime tentative » de<br />
renouvellement du cadre fédéral. Comment expliquer ces ambiguïtés qui ne<br />
pouvaient passer inaperçues et qui risquaient d’affaiblir la position du<br />
Québec ? Comment expliquer que ce « couperet » que le Québec s’apprêtait à<br />
placer sur la gorge du reste du Canada était si mal emmanché ?<br />
Comme nous tenterons de le montrer, l’ambiguïté de ce rapport reflète<br />
l’ambivalence plus profonde qui imprègne l’ensemble des documents que<br />
cette Commission a engendrés. D’une part, le processus de consultation<br />
populaire, qui constituait l’une des deux assises des travaux de la Commission,<br />
déclencha des revendications de toutes sortes que seule la sécession pourrait<br />
satisfaire, disait-on généralement. D’autre part, la plupart des expertises<br />
soumises à la Commission tendaient à freiner ces élans sécessionnistes.<br />
Les deux prochaines sections de ce texte examinent ces tendances. <strong>La</strong><br />
première scrutera la voix des citoyens et la deuxième, celle des experts.<br />
<strong>La</strong> voix des citoyens<br />
<strong>La</strong> Commission déclencha un vaste processus de consultation populaire. Elle<br />
se déplaça à travers la province pour écouter un gr<strong>and</strong> nombre d’individus et de<br />
groupes lors d’audiences publiques, souvent télédiffusées. Pendant plusieurs<br />
mois, tout le Québec et, dans une certaine mesure, le reste du Canada étaient à<br />
l’écoute de Bélanger-Campeau. Cette tribune connut un succès retentissant et<br />
plus de 600 mémoires, représentant un large éventail de revendications, furent<br />
reçus. Très souvent, la question du « statut constitutionnel du Québec » ne<br />
servait que de toile de fond à l’expression de doléances diverses. Il n’est donc<br />
pas étonnant que ces quelque 15 000 pages de texte furent résumées en un<br />
document officiel de 27 pages, inodores et sans vie, intitulé Les<br />
préoccupations et les perceptions se dégageant de la consultation populaire et<br />
catégorisé Document de travail numéro 3. S’il est en effet impossible de<br />
« résumer » ces centaines de mémoires, on peut néanmoins y trouver<br />
l’expression de diverses émotions sur lesquelles peut s’appuyer le projet<br />
sécessionniste. Cette section tentera de définir ces sentiments.<br />
291
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
Notons d’emblée un fait intéressant. Alors que durant l’épisode « Meech », le<br />
sentiment dominant dans l’univers symbolique du Québéc était<br />
« l’humiliation », mal attribué à « l’exclusion » du Québec de la <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
de 198222, dans le nouvel épisode lancé par Bourassa en juin 1990, ce<br />
traumatisme semble avoir été exorcisé. Les nouveaux sentiments s’expriment<br />
généralement sur un régistre plus combatif.<br />
Dans une étude récente sur le nationalisme québécois, Stéphane Dion met en<br />
lumière deux sentiments en apparence contradictoires qui favorisent, selon lui,<br />
la montée du sécessionnisme :<br />
Any secessionist movement is rooted in two anti<strong>the</strong>tical feelings: fear<br />
<strong>and</strong> confidence. <strong>The</strong> fear is of being weakened or even disappearing<br />
as a distinct people...; <strong>the</strong> confidence is that it can perform as well, or<br />
even better, on its own 23 .<br />
En effet, ces deux sentiments de confiance en soi et de peur de disparaître<br />
marquent profondément l’univers symbolique de la vague récente du<br />
sécessionnisme au Québec. Cependant, la lecture des travaux de la<br />
Commission revèle également la force d’au moins deux autres sentiments : la<br />
foi en un Québec souverain et le dénigrement du Canada et de son cadre<br />
fédéral. Examinons de plus près la manifestation de ces sentiments dans les<br />
mémoires soumis à la Commission.<br />
Le mémoire du <strong>Conseil</strong> du patronat du Québec, une des rares voix<br />
profédéralistes, fait le point sur les progrès accomplis par les élites<br />
francophones. Rédigé par André Raynauld, qui a minutieusement décrit dans<br />
les années cinquante le contrôle anglophone et étranger de l’économie<br />
québécoise, ce mémoire met en relief un revirement absolument spectaculaire.<br />
Par exemple, alors qu’en 1961, les francophones ne contrôlaient que 47,1 p.<br />
100 de l’économie québécoise, ce contrôle passait à 61,6 p. 100 en 1987. Ces<br />
données, et de nombreuses autres, l’amènent à affirmer que « les francophones<br />
ont investi le monde de l’entreprise comme ils avaient investi l’agriculture<br />
autrefois. Sans attendre la souveraineté, ils sont devenus une collectivité<br />
normale dans un univers normal24. » Ce sont des constatations analogues que<br />
l’on retrouve souvent dans les analyses de l’économie québécoise25 et qui<br />
illustrent un aspect clé du modèle de développement appelé communément<br />
« Québec Inc. ».<br />
Il s’agit là de la montée d’une élite économique qui, dans les termes de<br />
Raynauld, est devenue « normale » en faisant la démonstration, surtout envers<br />
elle-même, que le monde des affaires n’avait rien de sorcier. Enivrée par<br />
l’expansion économique des années 1983 à 1987, alliée au gouvernement<br />
provincial dans sa conquête du monde des affaires, cette élite pensait, tant que<br />
l’expansion des années quatre-vingts durait, que rien ne pouvait l’arrêter.<br />
D’ailleurs, le rapport final, dans ses multiples louanges de la vitalité du Québec<br />
contemporain, souligne notamment le fait que « la vigueur économique du<br />
Québec repose aujourd’hui sur la compétitivité des entreprises du secteur<br />
privé26. »<br />
Ce thème revient très fréquemment dans de nombreux mémoires. <strong>La</strong> Chambre<br />
de commerce de Québec, par exemple, relève fièrement la réputation acquise<br />
par cette nouvelle élite :<br />
292
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
L’orientation récente de la politique économique au Québec lui<br />
confère déjà une solide crédibilité en matière de libertés<br />
économiques, d’appui à l’économie privée et de recherche de<br />
compétitivité législative et fiscale 27 .<br />
À ce sentiment de confiance en soi et de progrès, qui alimente l’idée<br />
d’indépendance, s’allie le sentiment que le Canada, lui, régresse. C’est ainsi<br />
que le mémoire de la Chambre de commerce, comme d’ailleurs de nombreux<br />
autres, établit un parallélisme hâtif entre l’essor du Québec et « l’échec » du<br />
Canada :<br />
Il est important que les changements constitutionnels proposés par le<br />
Québec contribuent à corriger les vices du système fédéral qui ont pu<br />
entraîner le gouvernement central dans la débâcle financière<br />
actuelle 28 .<br />
Ces mots « vices » et « débâcle », lourds de sens, font allusion, bien sûr, à<br />
l’énorme déficit du Canada, mais aussi au fait que le gouvernement fédéral<br />
aurait, selon la Chambre de commerce, « perdu le contrôle sur ses dépenses » et<br />
favorisé « d’une manière tout à fait disproportionnée des taux d’intérêt<br />
élevés. » Ce mémoire critique par ailleurs le principe même du fédéralisme qui<br />
favorise « un coûteux chevauchement des compétences législatives » et donc<br />
le grossissement des structures administratives. D’où l’accusation fracassante<br />
et conforme aux discours nationalistes de l’heure : « Le fédéralisme pratiqué au<br />
Canada est un échec économique. »<br />
Mais ce n’est pas seulement sur le plan économique que « l’échec » du<br />
fédéralisme est dénoncé. Nombreux sont les mémoires qui présentent le<br />
gouvernement central comme une grosse bureaucratie assoiffée de pouvoir. <strong>La</strong><br />
Société nationale des Québécois (section Richelieu- Yamaska), par exemple,<br />
présente l’histoire du Canada, de 1759 à 1990, sous l’angle de la lutte éternelle<br />
du Québec contre les empiètements injustifiés du « Canada anglais » :<br />
Le gouvernement fédéral n’a jamais cessé de prendre de plus en plus<br />
de place et de s’approprier des pouvoirs qui étaient pourtant réservés<br />
au Québec 31 .<br />
Cette idée apparaît à maintes reprises et de diverses manières tout au long du<br />
texte. Ainsi, loin d’en rappeler la « gr<strong>and</strong>e noirceur », on reconnaît au régime<br />
Duplessis le mérite d’avoir vaillamment résistéà«lasoif de centralisation du<br />
fédéral32. »<br />
Cette vision d’un Québec, véritable Sisyphe, qui lutte éternellement et<br />
futilement contre les ingérences d’Ottawa est très fréquente. On la retrouve,<br />
par exemple, dans les mémoires des trois centrales syndicales les plus<br />
influentes : la CEQ, la CSN et la FTQ. Rejetant « le carcan fédéral » la CSN<br />
affirme même que :<br />
L’idée d’un Canada incluant le Québec n’a toujours été qu’une<br />
illusion... implantée de force qui n’a jamais vraiment su s’incarner et<br />
répondre aux aspirations de la minorité francophone 33 .<br />
Pareillement, la C.E.Q. reproche au Canada d’être un régime quasi fédéral<br />
étouffant pour le Québec 34.<br />
293
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
Sans s’encombrer de preuves, de nombreux mémoires présentent si<br />
fréquemment cette image d’un Québec résistant héroïquement à l’ingérence<br />
néfaste du pouvoir central qu’il serait fastidieux d’en énumérer ici les<br />
nombreuses variantes. Contentons-nous d’en signaler deux autres : l’une<br />
provenant d’un mouvement de jeunes et l’autre, du milieu universitaire.<br />
Selon le <strong>Conseil</strong> permanent de la jeunesse, la souveraineté du Québec<br />
s’impose parce que les jeunes Québécois souhaitent se développer dans une<br />
société qui « agit pour une plus gr<strong>and</strong>e équité et une plus gr<strong>and</strong>e justice<br />
sociale... qui priorise... la qualité de l’environnement... [la lutte contre le<br />
chômage et la pauvreté... et qui donne] aux gens des régions les pouvoirs<br />
nécessaires à leur plein épanouissement... » Or, affirment sans aucune<br />
démonstration les auteurs de ce mémoire, ceci ne peut se réaliser dans le cadre<br />
actuel parce que :<br />
L’histoire démontre clairement que le fédéralisme canadien, tel<br />
qu’on le connaît, ne peut répondre aux aspirations du Québec et que<br />
les multiples tentatives de modifier les choses... se sont soldées par<br />
des échecs 35 .<br />
L’Université du Québec, l’une des universités québécoises les plus<br />
importantes pour ce qui est de la population étudiante, semble partager cette<br />
opinion. En effet, d’après elle, en dépit de la résistance acharnée du Québec, le<br />
gouvernement central : « a malgré tout réussi à instituer les modes<br />
d’intervention qui perturbent le développement des universités<br />
québécoises 36. » D’ailleurs, ajoute-t-elle sans plus de démonstration, le<br />
« Canada anglais » n’a jamais rien compris au Québec :<br />
Le Québec constitue une société distincte. C’est là un fait avéré, que<br />
seules les instances politiques du Canada anglais s’obstinent à ne pas<br />
reconnaître 37 .<br />
On voit donc comment trois notions reviennent fréquemment pour rejeter et<br />
dénigrer tout ce qui a trait au Canada, au système fédéral et au gouvernement<br />
central : le Canada est une idée « imposée de force » aux francophones; le<br />
régime fédéral est essentiellement l’histoire d’un « échec » qui « étouffe » le<br />
Québec; le gouvernement central ne cherche qu’à « s’ingérer » dans ce qui ne<br />
le regarde pas et, en dépit de toute la vigilance des Québécois, ses interventions<br />
sont toujours « perturbantes. »<br />
D’un point de vue stratégique, ce type de discours peut aisément renforcer la<br />
voie sécessionniste préconisée par la Commission. Il est cependant important<br />
de noter que Léon Dion lui-même, qui préconisait la stratégie du « couteau sur<br />
la gorge », sentit le besoin de rappeler que : « contrairement à l’opinion reçue<br />
au Québec, le Canada est une fédération fortement décentralisée... » Il souligna<br />
également que le Québec avait bénéficié de son appartenance au Canada :<br />
Il ne faudrait pas oublier que les liens qui unissent le Québec au<br />
Canada lui ont été bénéfiques au cours de la décennie 1940 et de<br />
celles qui ont suivi 38 .<br />
Cette insistance sur la distanciation entre le Québec et le reste du Canada, qui<br />
semble au coeur du sentiment sécessionniste, se retrouve tant dans le mémoire<br />
de l’Université du Québec que dans ceux des centrales syndicales, des<br />
294
Chambres de commerce, du Mouvement des Caisses Desjardins, de l’Union<br />
des producteurs agricoles, des groupes de femmes des groupes de jeunes. Ces<br />
mémoires « oublient » régulièrement que c’est au sein du Canada que<br />
l’épanouissement du Québec s’est réalisé.<br />
De plus, souvent les intervenants sont tellement pris par leur propres<br />
problèmes qu’ils accordent peu ou pas de place à la question de l’heure, c’està-dire<br />
au statut constitutionnel du Québec. Professant leur foi en un Québec<br />
souverain, ils espèrent que celui-ci résoudra les problèmes qui leur tiennent à<br />
coeur.<br />
À titre d’exemple, le mémoire d’un groupe de centres de femmes affirme, sans<br />
aucune forme de démonstration, « qu’il ne fait aucun doute qu’un Québec<br />
indépendant est la solution à la sauvegarde de la langue et la culture39. » Cette<br />
confiance débordante ne les empêche pas cependant, deux pages plus loin de<br />
l’assortir de conditions : « Oui à un Québec souverain si... » Suit une très<br />
longue liste de revendications qui constitue l’essentiel du mémoire. Par<br />
exemple :<br />
UN QUÉBEC SOUVERAIN SI :<br />
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
Il met en place des mesures sociales adéquates favorisant la place des<br />
femmes dans la société... 40<br />
Les auteures de ce mémoire imaginent un Québec indépendant doté d’un<br />
meilleur système de sécurité sociale.<br />
Dans un même élan de confiance, le Mouvement Desjardins imagine, lui, un<br />
Québec indépendant tout à fait en contradiction avec cette dernière vision. En<br />
effet, soutient-il, non seulement le Canada freine le Québec par sa rigidité et<br />
son incapacité de s’adapter au nouvel environnement international mais, en<br />
plus, ses programmes de sécurité sociale constituent un fardeau trop lourd à<br />
porter. Reconnaissant la générosité envers le Québec des programmes<br />
fédéraux dans ces domaines, le mémoire déplore cependant l’utilisation de<br />
sommes considérables à des fins si peu productives :<br />
Il faut souligner que ces dépenses ne font que soutenir le pouvoir<br />
d’achat de personnes démunies, de façon temporaire ou permanente,<br />
mais qu’elles sont loin d’être aussi productives, sur le plan<br />
économique, que des engagements consacrés à la recherche... 41 .<br />
Critiquant ainsi certains programmes d’assistance sociale, contrastant cette<br />
forme d’intervention du gouvernement central avec celle du gouvernement<br />
québécois, comme s’il s’agissait de deux pays distincts, le mémoire affirme<br />
que c’est l’encouragement des initiatives privées qui fut la source de<br />
l’expansion économique du Québec.<br />
Ce faisant, le Mouvement Desjardins passe sous silence deux aspects<br />
importants de cette question. Premièrement, s’il était souverain, c’est le<br />
Québec qui aurait eu à financer son système de sécurité sociale.<br />
Deuxièmement, la péréquation n’existant plus, ce système pourrait coûter plus<br />
cher au Québec surtout s’il décidait, par exemple, de répondre aux<br />
revendications du mémoire du groupe de femmes cité plus haut.<br />
Mémoire après mémoire, groupe après groupe, on retrouve cette même<br />
conviction qu’un Québec souverain solutionnerait ses propres problèmes.<br />
295
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
Pour les femmes, un Québec souverain aurait des programmes de sécurité<br />
sociale plus généreux; pour le Mouvement Desjardins, il élaguerait l’État-<br />
Providence. Pour la Chambre de Commerce, il encouragerait davantage la<br />
liberté des échanges; pour les associations syndicales, il ferait le contraire. Ce<br />
qui étonne, c’est non la divergence des solutions proposées, mais la<br />
convergence fréquente dans l’identification de la source des problèmes.<br />
Autant on attribue à la structure fédérale actuelle la cause de tous les maux,<br />
sans que les intervenants n’en ressentent une responsabilité quelconque, autant<br />
on proclame sa foi dans la dynamique sociale positive qui prévaudrait dans cet<br />
hypothétique État indépendant.<br />
D’autre part, comme on l’a noté plus haut, un autre sentiment alimente aussi<br />
les poussées sécessionnistes : la crainte de « disparaître ». On sait que sur le<br />
plan démographique, le Québec subit les effets négatifs conjugués de deux<br />
phénomènes : la dénatalité et l’émigration. Dans le passé, la « revanche des<br />
berceaux », encouragée par le clergé, a donné au Québec un des plus hauts taux<br />
de natalité de l’Occident. Mais comme le constate le démographe Henripin, les<br />
moeurs ont changé avec une rapidité foudroyante et les Québécois et les<br />
Québécoises<br />
se sont... lancés avec une rare hardiesse dans le recours à la méthode<br />
la plus destructrice de la nature : la stérilisation 42 .<br />
Mais peu importe la méthode, le fait est que le taux de fécondité du Québec est<br />
tombé de 3,78 en 1951 à 1,43 en 1986, soit un des taux de fertilité les plus bas<br />
du monde43. Bien que ce taux soit récemment remonté à 1,7, il se situe encore<br />
bien en dessous du taux minimal de 2,1 requis pour maintenir la population à<br />
son niveau actuel. C’est ce qui explique qu’une étude comm<strong>and</strong>itée par le<br />
<strong>Conseil</strong> de la langue française prévoit que la part du Québec dans la population<br />
totale du Canada passera de 26,5 p. 100 en 1981 à 24,1 p. 100 en 202144. Il n’est pas étonnant que ces projections inquiètent les Québécois, et surtout les<br />
Québécois francophones. <strong>La</strong> décroissance démographique du Québec peut<br />
signifier une diminution de son poids politique et donc, possiblement, la perte<br />
de la vitalité du français en Amérique. Telle est la leçon que tirent, presque<br />
immanquablement, de nombreux organismes nationalistes.<br />
Le mémoire du Mouvement national des Québécois (section de Montréal) en<br />
est une frappante illustration. Près des deux tiers sont consacrés à ce problème<br />
qui, aux yeux de ce Mouvement, présente un double danger : d’abord sur le<br />
plan des relations externes du Québec avec ses voisins anglophones; danger<br />
également sur le plan interne, puisqu’un Québec vieillissant et stagnant serait<br />
moins productif et plus coûteux. S’appuyant sur des sources scientifiques<br />
fiables, les auteurs écrivent :<br />
Tous les signes apparaissent d’un rapide déclin démographique aux<br />
conséquences désastreuses.... [il faut] regarder en face le problème le<br />
plus troublant de notre histoire collective : celui de notre survie 45 .<br />
Notant la baisse du taux de natalité, les pertes du Québec en terme de<br />
migrations interprovinciales et le faible apport de l’immigration<br />
internationale, le mémoire ne camoufle pas le problème:<br />
296<br />
Bref l’immigration est nécessaire mais pas suffisante. <strong>La</strong> natalité est<br />
nécessaire mais peu assurée.
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
À ce problème bien réel, et fort complexe, analysé avec lucidité, les auteurs<br />
n’offrent comme solution que leur foi dans l’indépendance du Québec :<br />
Le Québec n’a pas le choix. S’il veut maîtriser son avenir, il lui faut<br />
rapidement disposer de tous les moyens d’un pays complet pour agir<br />
sur l’évolution de la population 46 .<br />
Ici, comme dans de nombreux autres mémoires, le lien entre le problème (par<br />
exemple, la crainte de disparaître), et la solution envisagée (la sécession), est<br />
affirmé plutôt qu’établi.<br />
Pour résumer cette première partie, rappelons qu’une diversité de sentiments<br />
sous-tendent les velléités sécessionnistes du Québec. D’une part, conscients<br />
de la fragilité du fait français et des progrès notoires du Québec francophone<br />
contemporain, nombreux sont les mémoires qui expriment simultanément la<br />
crainte des Québécois de disparaître et leur confiance en leur capacité de faire<br />
face à l’avenir tout seuls. D’autre part, le poids de la dette nationale, les<br />
déchirements internes autour de négociations constitutionnelles qui semblent<br />
sans issue et les nombreux autres problèmes auquels le Canada fait face<br />
légitiment la vieille habitude d’accuser « Ottawa » de tous les maux. On<br />
constate ainsi, dans la plupart des mémoires, une absence presque totale de<br />
référence aux bienfaits dérivés du Canada ainsi que du poids considérable dont<br />
jouit le Québec au sein de la fédération. Par exemple, le fait que, depuis plus<br />
d’un quart de siècle, le Premier ministre du Canada ait été québécois et que le<br />
Québec ait constitué l’axe central de la base électorale du parti au pouvoir<br />
n’occupe aucune place dans les analyses présentées.<br />
Au delà des faits, c’est la convergence de ces sentiments, et de beaucoup<br />
d’autres, qui accentue l’identification de nombreux Québécois à la « nation »<br />
québécoise et affaiblit le sentiment d’appartenance au Canada. Perçu, sinon<br />
comme un pays étranger, du moins comme une « super-structure politique » —<br />
dans les termes du premier ministre Bourassa —, le Canada doit ainsi faire tous<br />
les jours la preuve qu’il mérite de survivre. Alors que les sentiments affectifs<br />
sont canalisés vers le Québec, les calculs utilitaristes portent sur le Canada et<br />
son cadre fédéral.<br />
Il convient donc de voir si, aux yeux des experts consultés par la Commission,<br />
cette « super-structure » répond encore aux besoins et intérêts du Québec.<br />
<strong>La</strong> voix des experts<br />
Examinons maintenant le point de vue des spécialistes consultés par la<br />
Commission Bélanger-Campeau. Ce sont les « documents de travail » numéro<br />
1 et numéro 2 que nous privilégierons, car c’est surtout là que l’on trouve des<br />
analyses approfondies des questions touchant l’accession à l’indépendance.<br />
Le premier traite des questions économiques et le second, des questions<br />
juridiques, institutionnelles et démographiques. Nous examinerons d’abord<br />
les aspects « démolinguistiques » de la question, puis ses aspects économiques<br />
et, enfin, ceux d’ordre « juridique » et « institutionnel ».<br />
Les aspects démolinguistiques<br />
Comme nous l’avons vu, la « peur de disparaître » est étroitement liée au déclin<br />
de la population du Québec. Par contre, la solution préconisée, comme<br />
l’illustre le mémoire du Mouvement national des Québécois, est, elle, moins<br />
concrète et consiste souvent en un simple acte de foi dans l’indépendance du<br />
297
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
Québec. Comment les spécialistes consultés par la Commission analysent-ils<br />
cette question ?<br />
Cette tâche fut confiée à Marc Termote, démographe bien connu à l’INRS.<br />
Celui-ci confirme la possibilité très réelle du déclin démographique :<br />
Tous les auteurs de perspectives récentes semblent donc arriver à un<br />
consensus : si le « cours des choses » ne se modifie pas rapidement et<br />
drastiquement, les effectifs de la population québécoise (et<br />
montréalaise) devraient commencer à décroître au cours du prochain<br />
demi-siècle 47 .<br />
Poursuivant son analyse, il examine les trois principales sources<br />
d’accroissement de la population — la fécondité, l’immigration internationale<br />
et les flux migratoires inter-provinciaux — afin d’évaluer les effets de la baisse<br />
de population sur les divers groupes linguistiques du Québec.<br />
Concernant le taux de fécondité, Termote confirme qu’en dépit d’une légère<br />
hausse, celui-ci reste nettement inférieur au niveau requis pour assurer le<br />
maintien de la population. De ce fait, dit-il, « le groupe français du Québec a<br />
perdu ce qui représentait son seul atout démographique par rapport au groupe<br />
anglais48. »<br />
Du point de vue de l’immigration internationale, l’auteur note que celle-ci<br />
apporte peu au groupe francophone : environ 20 000 en cinq ans (en 1981-<br />
1986) 49.<br />
Quant aux flux migratoires interprovinciaux, trois facteurs importants<br />
affectent négativement l’évolution démographique du Québec. D’abord, le<br />
groupe anglophone ne cesse de décliner tant relativement qu’absolument. Ce<br />
déclin, amorcé depuis les années 1930, s’est gr<strong>and</strong>ement accentué entre 1976<br />
et 1986, soit depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir du gouvernement sécessionniste du<br />
Parti québécois (de 12,8 p. 100 de la population en 1976 à 10,3 p. 100 en<br />
198650). D’autre part, étant donné que ce sont les personnes âgées de 20 à 39<br />
ans qui quittent le Québec, le groupe anglophone décline et veillit51. Enfin, l’apport, même faible, des immigrants se combine à un solde migratoire<br />
net en faveur des autres provinces. Termote ajoute un fait peu connu et bien<br />
surprenant :<br />
Les immigrants en provenance des pays francophones ne manifestent<br />
pas une propension plus élevée à rester au Québec, au contraire 52 .<br />
Non seulement le Québec n’attire pas assez d’immigrants, mais il n’arrive pas<br />
à les retenir, peu importe leur langue maternelle. Par ailleurs, Termote relève la<br />
très faible mobilité des francophones originaires du Québec contrairement à la<br />
gr<strong>and</strong>e mobilité des anglophones :<br />
Le Québec apparaît vraiment déconnecté du reste du Canada, sauf en<br />
ce qui concerne les anglophones (et encore est-ce pour en sortir...) 53<br />
Projetant toutes ces données vers l’avenir, il conclut :<br />
298<br />
Selon toute probabilité, on parlera de plus en plus le français au<br />
Québec... Mais ce sont des Québécois de moins en moins nombreux<br />
qui le parleront 54 .
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
Ainsi, l’analyse de Termote revèle que le vrai problème du Québec ne réside<br />
pas dans son « anglicisation », mais dans sa dépopulation. À ce grave<br />
problème, Termote n’offre pas de solution tranchée. Il se contente plutôt de<br />
suggérer quelques hypothèses qui pourraient faciliter la recherche de<br />
solutions.<br />
Premièrement, dit-il, même si le taux de fécondité remontait à des niveaux<br />
élevés et, hypothèse peu probable, s’y maintenait, « cela ne ferait que retarder<br />
de dix ans (2016) le début de la décroissance55. » Deuxièmement, même si<br />
l’immigration atteignait 42 000 personnes par an et qu’elle se maintenait à ce<br />
niveau, l’année 2016 marquerait toujours le début de la décroissance56. Selon<br />
Termote, le chiffre de 42 000 semble fort improbable, puisqu’il n’a été atteint<br />
que très rarement et seulement dans des périodes de forte expansion<br />
économique.<br />
L’étude scientifique rigoureuse de cet expert met en relief la complexité du<br />
problème qui se prête mal à une solution tranchée, comme celle que préconise<br />
la Société nationale des Québécois. C’est pourquoi Termote suggère qu’avant<br />
d’envisager des mesures draconiennes, le Québec devrait essayer, très<br />
sérieusement, d’enrayer l’exode de ses résidents :<br />
Un afflux majeur d’immigrants internationaux serait d’ailleurs moins<br />
nécessaire si l’on parvenait à au moins garder ceux que l’on a 57 .<br />
Alors que la voix des citoyens dictait un changement radical appuyé sur la foi<br />
en un Québec indépendant, la voix des experts évoque plutôt des réformes<br />
pondérées dans un climat social favorisant la tranquilité et la sécurité. <strong>La</strong><br />
sécession favorise-t-elle la réalisation d’un tel climat social ?<br />
Pour répondre à cette question, tournons-nous de nouveau vers les spécialistes<br />
consultés par la Commission. Nous examinerons d’abord les questions d’ordre<br />
économique, puis celles d’ordre « juridique » et « institutionnel ».<br />
Les aspects économiques<br />
On évalue souvent les conséquences économiques de la sécession du Québec<br />
en répondant à deux types de questions : le Canada est-il « rentable »?un<br />
Québec souverain serait-il « viable » ? Ces questions lancent les débats sur de<br />
mauvaises pistes. En effet, l’une renvoie à une guerre de chiffres et donc à des<br />
interprétations inévitablement très élastiques de données très complexes.<br />
L’autre présuppose qu’il suffit d’avoir démontré la « viabilité » de la<br />
souveraineté pour avoir démontré sa nécessité. Or, de toute évidence, un<br />
Québec souverain serait viable. Nombreux sont les pays souverains qui<br />
disposent de ressources matérielles et humaines bien inférieures à celles du<br />
Québec. D’ailleurs, et fort justement, la question qui se posait à la Commission<br />
n’était pas de savoir si un Québec souverain serait viable, mais si l’on vivrait<br />
mieux ou moins bien dans un Québec souverain que dans le Québec actuel.<br />
Quel est son verdict ?<br />
Les analyses des spécialistes consultés par la Commission permettent<br />
d’entrevoir une réalité autre que celle qu’on trouve dans les mémoires<br />
mentionnés plus haut. L’étude de Pierre Fortin, un des chapitres clés du<br />
Document de travail numéro 1 sur l’économie, en est une bonne illustration.<br />
Examinons-le.<br />
299
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
Analysant le problème du chômage, Fortin note que même dans une bonne<br />
année, comme 1988, « le taux de chômage au Québec est demeuré parmi les<br />
plus élevés du continent (9,4 p. 100) 58. » Il note également que la situation<br />
s’aggrave et que, de 1966 à 1989, la hausse du chômage était « deux fois plus<br />
importante que la dérive qu’a connue l’Ontario59. »<br />
Fortin cerne systématiquement les sources de l’accroissement du chômage,<br />
dont certaines, selon lui, pourraient être indirectement attribuables au cadre<br />
fédéral. C’est ainsi qu’il déplore, par exemple, l’accès plus facile aux<br />
prestations d’assurance-chômage résultant de la refonte, en 1971, de la loi<br />
fédérale :<br />
Cette loi a considérablement allégé les conditions d’accès aux<br />
indemnités-chômage et fait augmenté... la fréquence et la durée du<br />
chômage... 60<br />
Fortin déplore également une autre source de chômage sous contrôle fédéral :<br />
« la persistance du chômage engendrée par la lutte incessante contre<br />
l’inflation61. »<br />
Cependant, parmi les nombreuses autres causes qu’il signale, certaines, selon<br />
lui, ne sont attribuables qu’au Québec, notamment l’effet « locomotive » de la<br />
hausse du salaire minimum, « la poussée des salaires de 1970 à 1980 dans les<br />
conventions collectives du secteur public62, » ainsi que l’exode de l’élite<br />
anglophone de Montréal qui aurait « accentué les difficultés de la<br />
métropole63. »<br />
Le portrait complexe et subtil qui se dégage de cette étude ne ressemble guère à<br />
celui des nombreux mémoires qui, comme on l’a vu, attribuent<br />
automatiquement tous les maux québécois au fédéralisme canadien à moins,<br />
bien sûr, que l’on ne suppose qu’un Québec indépendant s’en tirerait en<br />
réduisant les prestations d’assurance-chômage et en ab<strong>and</strong>onnant la lutte<br />
contre l’inflation. On trouve ces solutions simplistes dans certains mémoires<br />
(la première émanant souvent des milieux d’affaires, la deuxième, du monde<br />
syndical et des groupes populaires). Au contraire, Fortin présente une analyse<br />
rigoureuse et équilibrée.<br />
Tout au long du texte, Fortin met en relief le poids de ce qu’il appelle les<br />
« causes structurelles » du chômage. Selon lui, un Québec souverain, même<br />
s’il gérait d’une manière autonome sa politique monétaire et son taux de<br />
change, ne parviendrait pas « à maintenir le plein emploi de ses travailleurs<br />
dans le contexte inflationniste contemporain, puisque le chômage québécois<br />
est en partie élevé pour des raisons structurelles importantes64. » Toute<br />
l’analyse de fond du texte, développée dans les deux parties centrales du<br />
document, l’une intitulée « <strong>La</strong> photo » et l’autre « Le film », soit cinquante des<br />
soixante-quatorze pages, est consacrée à l’étude de ces causes structurelles.<br />
Ainsi, l’image qui se dégage de la lecture de ce document, c’est que la<br />
sécession ne constitue pas la solution au problème du chômage, puisque ces<br />
« causes structurelles » perdureraient. De plus, advenant la sécession, Fortin<br />
souligne, à plusieurs reprises, la nécessité pour le Québec d’établir des<br />
relations étroites avec le Canada et les États-Unis « en raison de sa forte<br />
intégration financière et commerciale au continent65. »<br />
En conclusion de cette analyse, Pierre Fortin note en passant que : « Bien que le<br />
fait soit encore peu connu, nous avons vécu depuis 1982 au Québec une forme<br />
spontanée d’action directe sur les salaires et les prix66. » Au Québec, affirme-t-<br />
300
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
il, sans avoir au préalable développé cette idée dans les sections analytiques,<br />
les syndicats et les entreprises ont déjà fait preuve d’esprit de modération et de<br />
conciliation. De plus, ajoute-t-il, toujours sans autre forme de preuve, l’esprit<br />
communautaire des Québécois s’épanouira encore plus dans un Québec<br />
indépendant et leur permettra de résoudre leurs problèmes mieux que le reste<br />
du Canada :<br />
Il n’est pas évident que la dynamique socio-politique canadienne se<br />
prêterait facilement à ce type de pratique. Mais l’esprit<br />
communautaire qui caractérise le Québec augmenterait certainement<br />
les chances de réussite d’une telle démarche chez nous 67 .<br />
Après un diagnostic très rigoureux du problème, Fortin évoque comme remède<br />
« l’esprit communautaire » des Québécois. Ce contraste entre la gr<strong>and</strong>e rigueur<br />
de l’analyse et la solution souhaitée est d’autant plus surprenant qu’il affirme,<br />
par ailleurs, que la politique canadienne des années soixante-dix du contrôle<br />
des prix et des salaires « a produit de bons résultats en permettant au taux<br />
d’inflation de baisser 68. » Ainsi, selon Fortin lui-même, « l’esprit<br />
communautaire » a déjà fait ses preuves dans l’ensemble du Canada et ne<br />
distingue donc pas le Québec du reste du Canada. Par ailleurs, Pierre Fortin<br />
affirmait :<br />
Mon mémoire à la Commission vise précisément à démontrer... que<br />
la menace de souveraineté politique br<strong>and</strong>ie par nos concitoyens est<br />
parfaitement crédible sur le plan économique et qu’il faut la prendre<br />
au sérieux 69 .<br />
Mais, comme on l’a vu, la « crédibilité économique » de la sécession n’a pas<br />
vraiment été établie dans la cinquantaine de pages d’analyse, elle a plutôt été<br />
évoquée en quelques lignes en conclusion. Pierre Fortin a peut-être contribué à<br />
rendre « la menace » plus crédible.<br />
Il est impossible d’examiner ici tout le Document de travail numéro 1 sur<br />
l’économie. Soulignons cependant que bien que la « viabilité » d’un Québec<br />
indépendant ne soit jamais mise en doute, immanquablement tous les auteurs<br />
soulignent la nécessité absolue du maintien de liens très étroits avec le reste du<br />
Canada.<br />
Par exemple, dans le chapitre 2, produit par le secrétariat de la Commission, on<br />
lit que l’espace économique canadien dans lequel le Québec est fortement<br />
ancré sert bien les intérêts des Québécois. Les auteurs rappellent, par exemple,<br />
le fait bien connu que l’industrie laitière du Québec, un des piliers de son<br />
économie, bénéficie gr<strong>and</strong>ement du cadre politique canadien70. Le secrétariat<br />
ajoute en outre que le Québec « est la province dont les industries<br />
manufacturières sont les plus protégées par la politique commerciale<br />
canadienne71. » On apprend d’ailleurs que l’intégration du Québec aux<br />
marchés canadien et américain est si profonde que celui-ci aurait tout intérêt,<br />
advenant sa sécession, à calquer sa politique monétaire sur celle du Canada.<br />
Autrement, « il verrait rapidement sa monnaie se déprécier, son inflation et ses<br />
taux d’intérêts augmenter72. » En fait, le secrétariat n’hésite pas à<br />
recomm<strong>and</strong>er tout simplement que le Québec « poursui[ve] l’utilisation d’une<br />
monnaie commune73. » Ces faits, parmi bien d’autres, l’amènent à<br />
recomm<strong>and</strong>er avec vigueur le maintien de liens très étroits entre le Québec et<br />
ses voisins :<br />
301
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
Le maintien de l’accès [aux marchés du Canada et des États-Unis] est<br />
une condition essentielle à la prospérité économique du Québec, et<br />
ce, quel que soit son statut politique et constitutionnel 74 .<br />
Dans un autre texte analysant « Les options monétaires d’un Québec<br />
souverain », l’auteur, Bernard Fortin, montre que l’adoption d’une monnaie<br />
québécoise produirait des coûts « non négligeables » qui, précise-t-il,<br />
« auraient tendance à s’accroître avec le degré d’indépendance monétaire du<br />
Québec vis-à-vis le Canada75. » Ainsi, plus le Québec s’éloigne du Canada<br />
plus les coûts augmentent. C’est ce qui amène l’auteur à recomm<strong>and</strong>er une<br />
union monétaire avec le Canada76. Daniel Racette reprend cette même idée dans un autre chapitre, mais cette fois<br />
sous l’angle de l’accès aux marchés financiers. Notant la gr<strong>and</strong>e mobilité des<br />
capitaux dans le monde contemporain, ainsi que la concurrence intense des<br />
divers marchés financiers, l’auteur insiste sur la nécessité pour le Québec de<br />
s’entendre avec le reste du Canada. Un nouvel État québécois aurait tout<br />
avantage, affirme-t-il, à adhérer [à une entente avec le reste du Canada] pour<br />
bénéficier dès le départ de la crédibilité que cette entente permettra77. Texte après texte toutes les recomm<strong>and</strong>ations vont dans le même sens. Le<br />
Québec devrait s’employer à maintenir le marché commun avec le Canada. Il<br />
devrait adopter sa monnaie, sa politique monétaire, sa politique financière, et<br />
ainsi de suite. On s’aperçoit même que, advenant la sécession, le traité de libreéchange<br />
avec les États-Unis et le Mexique, si souvent perçu comme essentiel<br />
au développement économique du Québec, ne s’appliquerait pas<br />
automatiquement ni dans les mêmes conditions. C’est ce que le secrétariat<br />
concède dans un style assez hermétique :<br />
Il y a donc tout lieu de croire qu’en l’absence d’un accord entre les<br />
États-Unis et le Canada pour modifier l’Accord de libre-échange<br />
existant en vue d’y intégrer le Québec, il ne saurait être question, pour<br />
ce dernier, d’une succession d’États de plein droit. Il n’est pas<br />
impossible cependant que l’Accord devienne applicable au<br />
Québec... 78<br />
Et c’est ainsi que texte après texte, on retrouve les mêmes mises en garde :<br />
advenant la souveraineté du Québec, la première tâche de ce nouvel État<br />
devrait être... de rétablir des liens très étroits avec le Canada ! Ou d’assumer<br />
des « coûts de transition » élevés.<br />
Pierre Fortin traite de cette dernière « option » avec humour dans un texte<br />
moins spécialisé intitulé « Le passage à la souveraineté et le déficit budgétaire<br />
du Québec ». Examinant les effets du partage de la dette fédérale advenant la<br />
sécession du Québec, Fortin évalueà7p.100duPIBledéficit budgétaire du<br />
nouvel État, déficit qui serait « le plus élevé des gr<strong>and</strong>s pays industriels<br />
avancés, à l’exception de l’Italie79; » ce qui l’amène à adresser des mises en<br />
garde très sévères aux gestionnaires des fonds publics. Il recomm<strong>and</strong>e en<br />
particulier, un « vigoureux programme de rationalisation budgétaire » et des<br />
réductions des dépenses de l’ordre de trois milliards de dollars. « L’État<br />
québécois devrait être maigre et souple, le plus rapidement possible »,<br />
souligne-t-il :<br />
302
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
Bref, le « party de l’indépendance » devrait être limité à une seule nuit<br />
et il faudrait avoir, au préalable, envoyé en détention préventive les<br />
politiciens patriotards portés à la dépense somptuaire 80 .<br />
Vu la propension de la fonction publique québécoise, comme peut-être celle de<br />
tout État, de grossir allègrement, et vu les promesses du Parti québécois<br />
d’absorber les quelque dizaines de milliers de fonctionnaires fédéraux<br />
québécois advenant la sécession cette remarque laisse perplexe.<br />
Comme nous venons de le voir, le Document de travail numéro 1, qui tente de<br />
déterminer si l’économie québécoise serait mieux gérée et plus prospère<br />
advenant la sécession, n’aboutit certainement pas à une conclusion tranchée en<br />
faveur de cette option. En fait, ce document établit plutôt que cette option, qui<br />
impliquerait des « coûts de transition » probablement élevés, serait possible.<br />
Néanmoins, tous les experts consultés soulignent la nécessité, advenant la<br />
sécession, du maintien de relations très harmonieuses et très serrées avec le<br />
Canada.<br />
Le maintien de telles relations est tenu pour acquis dans les milieux<br />
nationalistes québécois. L’idée que le Québec ne rencontrerait pas d’obstacles<br />
dans l’établissement de rapports sereins avec le Canada et ses autres voisins<br />
repose sur le postulat dit de la « rationalité économique ». Autrement dit, pour<br />
protéger leurs propres intérêts, les partenaires économiques traditionnels du<br />
Québec, devenus des États frontaliers, ne refuseraient pas une telle<br />
collaboration. Est-ce un modèle valable ?<br />
« Non », affirme l’ASDEQ, l’Association des économistes québécois dans son<br />
mémoire à la Commission :<br />
Cette définition d’un comportement « rationnel » en situation de<br />
choix interdépendant constitue une grossière simplification. Tous<br />
ceux qui sont familiers avec la théorie des jeux en percevront<br />
immédiatement les faiblesses 81 .<br />
Pour ces économistes, advenant la sécession, il n’est pas du tout « rationnel »<br />
de penser qu’un climat idyllique de coopération prévaudrait. Évoquant toute la<br />
série de désaccords qui ont marqué l’histoire récente du Canada, ils affirment<br />
que rien dans cette histoire ne prédispose à la coopération : « Tout, au contraire,<br />
suggère des stratégies d’affrontement82. » Or, pour eux, l’existence d’un<br />
climat favorable à la coopération constitue la condition si ne qua non du bienêtre<br />
des Québécois. C’est ce qui amène ces économistes, triés sur le volet, à<br />
affirmer qu’advenant la sécession du Québec, « le rôle des considérations non<br />
économiques doit donc être — et sera — déterminant83. » Car à leurs yeux,<br />
« l’essentiel tient à la présence ou l’absence d’un climat de coopération, de<br />
confiance mutuelle au moment où les choix stratégiques sont effectués84. »<br />
Pour évaluer « la présence ou l’absence d’un climat de coopération » advenant<br />
la sécession du Québec, tournons-nous, une dernière fois, vers les spécialistes<br />
consultés par la Commission.<br />
Les aspects juridiques et institutionnels<br />
Le chapitre 1 du Document de travail numéro 2 (plus de 100 page rédigées par<br />
José Woerhling) analyse très soigneusement toute une série de questions<br />
relatives à la nature du climat qui prévaudrait advenant la sécession du Québec.<br />
L’auteur présente deux scénarios possibles : accession à l’indépendance avec<br />
303
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
l’approbation et la collaboration du Canada; sécession sans l’accord du<br />
Canada. On pourrait croire que la première option pose si peu de problèmes<br />
qu’elle ne mérite pas notre attention, mais tel n’est pas le cas.<br />
L’auteur note, tout d’abord, qu’en cas de sécession, :<br />
la situation du Québec serait véritablement unique, puisqu’il s’agirait<br />
du seul cas contemporain de sécession d’un État membre d’une<br />
fédération faisant partie des démocraties libérales et des pays<br />
développés et riches 85 .<br />
C’est, comme on l’a vu plus haut, ce qui étonnait Francis Fukuyama. De plus,<br />
nous apprenons que cette situation serait non seulement unique mais illégale,<br />
puisqu’aucune disposition constitutionnelle canadienne ne prévoit la<br />
sécession d’une province. Il faudrait donc qu’au préalable la <strong>Constitution</strong> du<br />
Canada soit amendée de manière à reconnaître le principe de la sécession.<br />
Selon l’auteur, dans la meilleure hypothèse, une telle modification pourrait se<br />
faire en vertu de l’article 38 de la loi constitutionnelle de 1982 n’exigeant<br />
qu’une majorité des deux tiers des provinces. Aucune démarche propre au<br />
Québec, y compris un référendum, ne peut contourner cette barrière :<br />
Le fait qu’un gouvernement provincial sécessionniste obtienne<br />
l’appui de la population provinciale lors d’un référendum ne<br />
changerait rien aux données juridiques du problème 86 .<br />
Nous apprenons ainsi que le référendum sur la sécession recomm<strong>and</strong>é par la<br />
Commission n’aurait aucun poids légal. Mais nous apprenons aussi qu’une<br />
sécession légale du Québec exigerait qu’au préalable le gouvernement fédéral<br />
ainsi que sept des dix provinces canadiennes acceptent d’amender la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>.<br />
Considérant, comme le souligne très justement l’auteur, « l’extraordinaire<br />
complexité et la très gr<strong>and</strong>e rigidité de la procédure de modification de la<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong> du Canada », le défi serait de taille. Comme d’autre part une telle<br />
modification introduirait au sein de la <strong>Constitution</strong> un mécanisme<br />
désintégratif autorisant la sécession de toute autre province, cette première<br />
barrière semble, à toutes fins pratiques, infranchissable.<br />
Mais on se rend vite compte que là n’est pas le seul problème. En effet, dit<br />
l’auteur, même dans l’hypothèse d’une sécession « approuvée par le Canada<br />
anglais et réalisée en respectant la <strong>Constitution</strong> canadienne... les questions à<br />
résoudre resteront nombreuses et complexes87. » C’est à l’analyse de ces<br />
questions, que l’auteur se consacre.<br />
Selon Woerhling, l’un des problèmes les plus épineux a trait aux droits des<br />
peuples autochtones qui « soulèveraient sûrement des difficultés<br />
particulières88. » En effet, non seulement le Québec devrait-il respecter leurs<br />
droits, y compris leurs droits territoriaux, mais de plus il devrait s’adapter au<br />
fait que ces peuples autochtones voudront, très probablement, maintenir des<br />
liens avec le gouvernement fédéral. Le Québec ne pouvant s’y opposer, la<br />
coopération entre le Québec et le Canada devient essentielle. C’est pourquoi<br />
l’auteur suggère « un accord Québec-Canada confiant à un organisme mixte...<br />
le soin d’entendre et de trancher les litiges89. » Ainsi, pour les affaires<br />
autochtones, un Québec indépendant devrait très vite partager sa souveraineté<br />
avec le Canada.<br />
304
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
En fait, plus on avance dans la lecture de ce texte, plus on se rend compte de<br />
l’extrême complexité du processus d’accession à l’indépendance et plus<br />
augmente le nombre de sphères dans lesquelles le Québec devrait partager sa<br />
souveraineté avec le Canada. Par exemple, contrairement à ce qu’on pourrait<br />
croire, un Québec indépendant ne pourrait pas, à sa guise, ab<strong>and</strong>onner toute la<br />
législation relevant du gouvernement fédéral qui s’appliquait à son territoire<br />
en tant que province. Toutes les causes en cours dans les tribunaux<br />
d’obédience fédérale exigeraient une étroite collaboration entre les deux États.<br />
Ce n’est qu’ainsi qu’on éviterait le recours à « des principes complexes tirés du<br />
droit international90. »<br />
De plus, prévient l’auteur, un vide juridique dans des champs aussi importants<br />
que le droit criminel et le système bancaire, présentement de compétence<br />
fédérale, pourrait engendrer une situation chaotique. Pour l’éviter, l’auteur<br />
propose bien plus qu’une simple collaboration avec le Canada, puisqu’il<br />
suggère que le Québec garde les lois fédérales qui lui sont utiles :<br />
Il faudrait donc que l’Assemblée nationale adopte, dès l’accession à<br />
la souveraineté, une loi stipulant que... les lois fédérales existantes<br />
continueraient de s’appliquer au Québec 91 .<br />
Mais là ne s’arrête pas l’étroite collaboration entre les deux nouveaux États.<br />
Abordant la question délicate et très complexe de la citoyenneté, l’auteur note<br />
le fait bien évident que tous les citoyens canadiens domiciliés au Québec<br />
devraient recevoir la citoyenneté québécoise. Mais il laisse entendre, en plus,<br />
que les Québécois pourraient conserver la citoyenneté canadienne :<br />
Il serait préférable que le Québec et le Canada s’entendent... quant à<br />
la citoyenneté et à un éventuel droit d’option des personnes affectées<br />
par le changement de souveraineté 92 .<br />
Que les Québécois veuillent le meilleur des deux mondes, on le comprend.<br />
Mais pourquoi le Canada accorderait-il aux Québécois le droit de demeurer<br />
des Canadiens et donc de bénéficier des avantages politiques, institutionnels<br />
et sociaux que confère la citoyenneté du pays qu’ils auraient rejeté ? L’auteur,<br />
probablement conscient de l’improbalitié de cette option, se contente<br />
d’ailleurs de dire qu’une telle entente serait « préférable ».<br />
Woehrling identifie, en outre, toute une série de problèmes de divers ordres<br />
requérant une très étroite collaboration entre le Québec et le Canada, tels le sort<br />
des fonctionnaires fédéraux en poste au Québec, le sort des députés québécois<br />
au Parlement canadien, la disposition des biens fédéraux situés au Québec, la<br />
répartition des dettes, la succession aux traités, l’admission dans les<br />
organismes internationaux, et ainsi de suite. Pour résoudre ces problèmes :<br />
Dans tous les cas, il vaut évidemment mieux que la situation soit<br />
réglée par des accords bilatéraux de succession, afin d’éviter le plus<br />
possible les litiges après l’indépendance 93 .<br />
Mais en plus de cette étroite collaboration sur le plan interne, l’aide du Canada<br />
serait également requise sur le plan des relations internationales. En effet,<br />
l’auteur nous rappelle que le Québec ne serait pas automatiquement admis au<br />
sein des organisations internationales auxquelles appartient le Canada :<br />
305
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
<strong>La</strong> règle générale est que tout État nouveau doit dem<strong>and</strong>er son<br />
admission et se soumettre aux procédures habituelles d’acceptation<br />
de sa c<strong>and</strong>idature 94 .<br />
Le même principe régirait l’admissibilité du Québec aux traités internationaux<br />
négociés par le Canada. Ainsi, par exemple, les termes du traité de libreéchange<br />
nord-américain devraient être renégociés avec les États-Unis et le<br />
Mexique. Comme nous l’avons vu plus haut, Woerhling confirme de la sorte<br />
ce que le secrétariat de la Commission avait déjà établi à ce sujet. Or, il<br />
convient de rappeler que ce traité était fort apprécié par la plupart des élites<br />
québécoises. Woerhling note qu’un nouveau traité désavantagerait<br />
probablement le Québec, entre autres, parce que sa négociation inclurait de<br />
nouveaux intervenants :<br />
Le Canada et le Québec pourraient signer un accord de dévolution...<br />
Cependant, un tel accord ne pourrait pas être imposé aux États tiers<br />
sans leur consentement 95 .<br />
C’est pour toutes ces raisons que Woerhling souligne que la collaboration du<br />
Canada serait essentielle pour aider le Québec à se faire une place au soleil<br />
international :<br />
Les autorités fédérales pourraient assister gr<strong>and</strong>ement le Québec<br />
dans son entrée sur la scène internationale 96 .<br />
Reprenons, en conclusion, l’analyse du scénario 1 de Woerhling, laquelle<br />
suppose une collaboration des plus harmonieuses entre le Canada et le Québec<br />
tant avant qu’après la sécession. Le premier geste requis du Canada serait<br />
l’amendement de sa constitution de façon à accorder au Québec, et à toute<br />
autre province, le droit à la sécession. Une fois la <strong>Constitution</strong> modifiée, le<br />
Canada devrait aider le Québec à régler la question autochtone et à tempérer<br />
les revendications territoriales qui s’y rattachent. Cela fait, le Canada devrait<br />
permettre au Québec de conserver, à sa guise, toutes les lois fédérales et pour<br />
aussi longtemps qu’il le voudrait. Le Canada devrait également collaborer<br />
avec le Québec pour éviter un vide juridique et le chaos qui peut en découler.<br />
Cette étroite collaboration devrait s’étendre également au partage de la dette, à<br />
la répartition des biens publics, à la réintégration des fonctionnaires fédéraux<br />
travaillant au Québec, à la renégociation des traités internationaux, à<br />
l’admission du Québec aux organismes internationaux... Et, pour finir, le<br />
Canada devrait accorder aux nouveaux Québécois qui auraient rejeté leur pays<br />
le droit de rester Canadiens avec les privilèges qui s’y rattachent.<br />
Nous voyons donc que même selon le scénario d’une collaboration étroite du<br />
Canada — cas plutôt rare dans l’histoire récente des relations entre le Québec<br />
et le reste du Canada — la situation du nouvel État demeurerait fragile. Il est<br />
donc inutile de considérer ici le deuxième scénario de Woerhling, pourtant<br />
nettement plus probable, d’une sécession sans l’accord du Canada.<br />
L’analyse de Woerhling constitue un complément indispensable à celle des<br />
questions d’ordre économique présentée plus haut et, notamment, à la mise en<br />
garde servie dans le mémoire de l’ASDEQ. Rappelons que selon ce groupe<br />
d’économistes québécois de renom, incluant Pierre Fortin et André Raynauld,<br />
la faisabilité de la sécession dépend en dernière analyse de considérations non<br />
économiques. « L’essentiel, affirmaient-ils, tient à la présence ou l’absence<br />
306
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
d’un climat de coopération, de confiance mutuelle 97. » Woerhling a montré<br />
l’improbabilité d’une telle occurrence. On peut donc conclure que les analyses<br />
des experts ne justifient pas les risques d’une sécession.<br />
Stratégie et politique : les lendemains d’une Commission<br />
On a vu que la recomm<strong>and</strong>ation à « deux voies » de la Commission — la<br />
transformation « en profondeur » du fédéralisme canadien ou un référendum<br />
sur la sécession — ne constituait en réalité qu’une stratégie de négociation.<br />
Cette dimension proprement politique de la mission de la Commission<br />
Bélanger-Campeau est soigneusement notée par Woerhling lui-même dans la<br />
présentation de son rapport où il met en relief deux éléments. Premièrement,<br />
comme Fortin, il affirme qu’une des principales, sinon l’unique fonction, de la<br />
Commission consiste à renforcer la main du Québec dans ses négociations<br />
avec le reste du Canada :<br />
<strong>La</strong> Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec a<br />
été créée notamment pour rechercher les moyens d’instaurer un<br />
nouveau rapport de force entre le Québec et le Canada anglais, afin de<br />
dénouer l’impasse créée par l’échec de l’Accord du lac Meech 98 .<br />
Deuxièmement, il souligne, à plusieurs reprises, la prépondérance des facteurs<br />
politiques. Pour utiliser sa terminologie, la « légitimité des positions en<br />
présence » prend le pas sur leur stricte « légalité », puisque, selon lui, pour les<br />
institutions démocratiques la « volonté populaire constitue leur justification et<br />
le véritable moteur de leur fonctionnement99. » Parallèlement, dit-il, « cette<br />
même réalité se constate dans l’application du droit international qui est fondé<br />
sur le principe de l’efficacité vaut titre100. » Ainsi, pour que la démarche<br />
sécessionniste réussisse, tant sur le plan interne que sur le plan externe, il faut,<br />
selon Woerhling, qu’essentiellement deux conditions « politiques » soient<br />
satisfaites. Premièrement, il faut que tous les changements au statut politique<br />
du Québec «soient endossés par une majorité suffisante de la population<br />
québécoise, de préférence à l’occasion d’un référendum » et, deuxièmement, il<br />
faut que le Québec s’assure de la collaboration du reste du Canada, tant avant<br />
qu’après la réalisation de ce changement.<br />
En dernier ressort, la « faisabilité » de la sécession, ou de tout autre<br />
changement de statut constitutionnel, relève de considérations d’ordre<br />
« politique ». Très clairement, Woerhling relance la balle dans le camp des<br />
politiciens :<br />
Il convient de souligner au départ que la mise en oeuvre du droit<br />
constitutionnel et du droit international est fortement conditionnée<br />
par des facteurs politiques tenant à la primauté des faits, aux rapports<br />
de force et à la légitimité des positions en présence 101 .<br />
On comprend donc l’échec de la stratégie de négociations axée sur la<br />
Commission Bélanger-Campeau : le gouvernement prit la balle au bond.<br />
En effet, plus avançait la date du référendum, plus il devenait clair que le<br />
premier ministre Bourassa, qui avait certainement scruté attentivement les<br />
travaux de la Commission et qui connaissait fort bien les enjeux, ne voulait à<br />
aucun prix faire la sécession. De plus, il devenait également clair que la<br />
majorité des Québécois n’auraient pas dit « Oui»àlasécession102. Coincé par<br />
sa stratégie du « couteau sur la gorge », le gouvernement Bourassa en était<br />
307
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
réduit à chercher une entente à tout prix. Selon le célèbre dossier publié par<br />
L’Actualité, lel er novembre 1992, Bourassa aurait dit lui-même au premier<br />
ministre Mulroney :<br />
Je suis coincé... Ou je reporte le référendum, et je me fais accuser de<br />
ne pas respecter ma parole et de tricher avec l’histoire, ou je fais un<br />
référendum auquel les Québécois ne sont pas prêts... 103<br />
Là se trouve la réponse au « mystère » évoqué par Léon Dion qui s’étonnait que<br />
Bourassa ait laissé s’échapper « le triple rapport de force qu’il avait entre les<br />
mains ». Bourassa savait que cette stratégie s’était retournée contre lui.<br />
Si la Commission Bélanger-Campeau a échoué sur le plan stratégique, elle a<br />
toutefois réussi à renforcer l’idée même de sécession au Québec.<br />
En effet, lorsque pendant des mois, se déplaçant à travers la province, elle a<br />
prêté l’oreille à tous ceux qui avaient matière à se plaindre, elle a canalisé leurs<br />
revendications dans le sens de la sécession. Après tout, la souveraineté du<br />
Québec, présentée comme souhaitable et imminente, devenait la réponse à<br />
tous les problèmes. En favorisant ainsi l’expression de tels sentiments, pour les<br />
utiliser à des fins stratégiques, le Parti libéral du Québec a réussi à légitimer la<br />
raison d’être de son adversaire : le Parti québécois. D’ailleurs, ce Parti, voué à<br />
la sécession, entend utiliser à ses propres fins la dynamique déclenchée par la<br />
Commission. En effet, comme on peut le lire dans un document distribué aux<br />
médias, ce Parti se promet d’utiliser toutes les occasions pour reconstruire « le<br />
formidable consensus établi dans la société québécoise au cours des travaux de<br />
la commission Bélanger-Campeau. » Ce « formidable consensus », c’est le<br />
gouvernement fédéraliste de Robert Bourassa qui l’a offert au Parti québécois;<br />
sur un plateau d’argent.<br />
Et c’est ainsi que, par le biais de la Commission « Bélanger-Campeau »<br />
s’unirent, dans un même élan, la stratégie d’un parti fédéraliste et les visées<br />
d’un parti indépendantiste pour ajouter une pierre de plus à la construction de<br />
l’idée de sécession au Québec.<br />
Notes<br />
1. C’est dans le cadre d’un séminaire sur le nationalisme, à <strong>La</strong>val, que les thèmes analysés ici<br />
ont germé. Comme toujours, je dois donc beaucoup à mes étudiants. Je tiens également à<br />
remercier Jean-Pierre Derriennic, Stéphane Dion et William Johnson pour leurs<br />
commentaires sur une première version de ce texte. Merci également aux rédacteurs ainsi<br />
qu’aux évaluateurs anonymes de cette revue. Merci enfin, et surtout, à Monique, sans qui ce<br />
texte n’aurait pas vu le jour.<br />
2. <strong>La</strong> situation canadienne constituant un cas d’espèce, elle étonne de nombreux observateurs.<br />
Francis Fukuyama, par exemple, y voit même une sorte de test des valeurs démocratiques et<br />
libérales face aux pressions du nationalisme ethno-culturel :<br />
<strong>The</strong> best test case of this in <strong>the</strong> world right now is Quebec... This is because Quebec is a<br />
subdivision within a prosperous <strong>and</strong> stable liberal democratic country... <strong>The</strong> breakup of<br />
Canada along national lines would be an interesting piece of evidence concerning <strong>the</strong><br />
adequacy of modern liberal democracy. (Journal of Democracy, octobre 1992, p. 28)<br />
3. « Pour sortir de l’impasse constitutionnelle » Document de travail, numéro 4. Les avis des<br />
spécialistes invités à répondre aux huit questions posées par la Commission, Québec, 1991,<br />
p. 279.<br />
4. <strong>La</strong> Presse, l er octobre 1992, p. B3.<br />
308
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
5. « Quebec Beyond <strong>the</strong> Federal Regime of 1867-1982: From Distinct Society to National<br />
Community » dans R. Watts et D. Brown, éd. Options for a New Canada, University of<br />
Toronto Press, 1991, p. 103.<br />
6. Ibid., p. 105.<br />
7. Presque tous les sondages montrent que la période de juin à octobre 1990, immédiatement<br />
« après Meech », marque le faîte de la vague sécessionniste. Les sondages Angus-Reid du 20<br />
juillet, par exemple, ou de Léger-Léger de la fin octobre 1990 ou encore l’étude d’Édouard<br />
Cloutier et de ses collaborateurs, Le virage, (Québec/Amérique, 1992) indiquent tous la<br />
même tendance. Selon la formulation de la question, entre 50 et 64 % des Québécois<br />
favorisaient la sécession.<br />
8. Rapport de la Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec, Québec, mars<br />
1991, p. 17.<br />
9. Ibid., p. 18.<br />
10. Ibid., p. 20.<br />
11. Ibid., p. 24.<br />
12. Ibid., p. 24<br />
13. Ibid., p. 35<br />
14. Ibid., p. 31. C’est moi qui souligne.<br />
15. Ibid., p. 58.<br />
16. Ibid., p. 84.<br />
17. Ibid., p. 60.<br />
18. Ibid., p. 81.<br />
19. Ibid., p. 83. C’est moi qui souligne.<br />
20. Ibid., p. 96.<br />
21. Ibid., p. 92<br />
22. Cet épisode et ce sentiment ont été longuement analysés dans M. Nemni, « Le ‘dés’accord<br />
du <strong>La</strong>c Meech et la construction de l’imaginaire symbolique des Québécois », paru dans L.<br />
Balthazar, G. <strong>La</strong>forest, V. Lemieux, Le Québec et la restructuration du Canada, 1980-<br />
1992 : enjeux et perspectives, Québec, Septentrion, pp. 167-197. Une étude plus succincte<br />
de cette même question a paru dans le Queen’s Quarterly, vol. 99, n o 1, printemps, 1992.<br />
23. « Explaining Quebec Nationalism » dans R. Kent Weaver <strong>The</strong> Collapse of Canada ?,<br />
Washington, D .C., <strong>The</strong> Brookings Institution, 1992, p. 78.<br />
24. « Les enjeux économiques de la souveraineté, » octobre 1990, pp. 37-38.<br />
25. On retrouve ces données non seulement dans les documents de la Commission mais aussi<br />
dans les statistiques gouvernementales. Voir, par exemple, Le Québec statistique, 59 e<br />
édition, Gouvernement du Québec, 1989.<br />
26. Rapport de la Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec, Québec, mars<br />
1991, pp. 18-19.<br />
27. L’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec : sa dimension économique, Montréal, 1 er<br />
novembre 1990, p. 9<br />
28. Ibid., p. 13.<br />
29. Ibid., p. 11.<br />
30. Ibid., p. 2.<br />
31. Moins de discours, plus d’action, 2 novembre 1990, p. 4.<br />
32. Ibid., p. 5.<br />
33. Un choix clair pour la CSN : L’indépendance du Québec, novembre 1990, p. 14.<br />
34. Centrale de l’enseignement du Québec (CEQ), Indépendance nationale et souveraineté<br />
populaire, novembre 1990, p. 37.<br />
35. Les jeunes et l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec, novembre 1990, p. 25.<br />
36. Ibid.<br />
37. Mémoire de l’Université du Québec à la Commission parlementaire sur l’avenir politique et<br />
constitutionnel du Québec, 31 octobre 1990, p .2.<br />
38. « Pourquoi je voterai Non », dans <strong>La</strong> Presse, 1 er octobre 1992, p. B3.<br />
39. Centres de femmes du Saguenay-<strong>La</strong>c-St-Jean-Chibougamau, Mémoire soumis à la<br />
Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec, octobre 1990, p. 3.<br />
40. Ibid., p. 5.<br />
41. Ibid., p. 19.<br />
42. Naître ou ne pas être, Québec, Institut québécois de recherche sur la culture, 1989, p. 78.<br />
309
IJCS/RIÉC<br />
43. Ibid., p. 73.<br />
44. Marc Termote et Danielle Gauvreau, <strong>La</strong> situation démolinguistique du Québec, Éditeur<br />
officiel du Québec, 1988, p. 253.<br />
45. Sans les moyens d’un pays complet, le Québec français ne fera bientôt plus le poids,<br />
novembre 1990, pp 23-24. Rappelons que cette question fit une entrée très remarquée dans<br />
l’univers médiatique, en hiver 1989, lorsque parut le documentaire Disparaître de l’Office<br />
national du film. M me Lise Payette, ex-ministre au sein du gouvernement Lévesque,<br />
présentait la dénalité comme la principale menace au fait français, et l’immigration comme<br />
un mal nécessaire vu la difficulté « d’assimiler » ces nouveaux arrivants.<br />
46. Ibid., p. 47.<br />
47. « L’évolution démolinguistique du Québec et du Canada », Éléments d’analyse<br />
institutionnelle, juridique et démolinguistique pertinents à la révision du statut politique et<br />
constitutionnel du Québec, Document de travail numéro 2, Québec, 1991, p. 270.<br />
48. Ibid., p. 256.<br />
49. Ibid., p. 254.<br />
50. Ibid., p. 239.<br />
51. Ibid., p. 247.<br />
52. Ibid., p. 273.<br />
53. Ibid., p. 253.<br />
54. Ibid., p. 276.<br />
55. Ibid., p. 271.<br />
56. Ibid., p. 270.<br />
57. Ibid., p. 273.<br />
58. « <strong>La</strong> question de l’emploi au Québec : la photo et le film », chapitre 4, Éléments d’analyse<br />
économique pertinents à la révision du statut politique et constitutionnel du Québec,<br />
Document de travail numéro 1, Québec, 1991, p. 167.<br />
59. Ibid., p. 169.<br />
60. Ibid., p. 231.<br />
61. Ibid., p. 170.<br />
62. Ibid., p. 172.<br />
63. Ibid., p. 231.<br />
64. Ibid., p. 176.<br />
65. Ibid., p. 176.<br />
66. Ibid., p. 234.<br />
67. Ibid., p. 237.<br />
68. Ibid., p. 235.<br />
69. « Le choix forcé du Québec : aspects économiques et stratégiques » Document de travail<br />
numéro 4, p. 342.<br />
70. Secrétariat de la Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec, « L’accès<br />
du Québec aux marchés extérieurs et à l’espace économique canadien », Document de<br />
travail numéro 1, p. 45.<br />
71. Ibid., p. 45.<br />
72. Ibid., p. 40.<br />
73. Ibid., p. 41.<br />
74. Ibid., p. 50.<br />
75. Ibid., Bernard Fortin, p. 287.<br />
76. Ibid., p. 299.<br />
77. « Intégration financière internationale et interdépendances des politiques macroéconomiques<br />
nationales » dans ibid., p. 273.<br />
78. Op. cit., p. 35, mes italiques. Notons, que la Commission admet là ce que de nombreux<br />
spécialistes, surtout anglophones, ont maintes fois répété. Voir, par exemple, les travaux du<br />
John Deutsch Institute for <strong>the</strong> Study of Economic Policy et, notamment, Robin W. Boadway<br />
et al., éd., Economic Dimensions of <strong>Constitution</strong>al Change, deux volumes, Kingston (Ont.),<br />
Queens’s University Press, 1991. Voir également <strong>The</strong> Gazette du 1 er octobre 1992, qui cite<br />
de hautes autorités américaines confirmant ce fait.<br />
79. Dans Alain-G. Gagnon et François Rocher, Répliques aux détracteurs de la souveraineté du<br />
Québec, Montréal, VLB éditeur, 1992, p. 457.<br />
80. Ibid., p. 458.<br />
310
<strong>La</strong> Commission Bélanger-Campeau et la<br />
construction de l’idée de sécession au Québec<br />
81. ASDEQ, Mémoire à la Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec,<br />
novembre 1990, p. 40. Ce mémoire, approuvé par l’association, est le fruit des délibérations<br />
de sept économistes issus de divers milieux québécois. Parmi les auteurs, notons la<br />
participation de Pierre Fortin et d’André Raynauld.<br />
82. Ibid., p. 41.<br />
83. Ibid., p. 39.<br />
84. Ibid., p. 41.<br />
85. « Les aspects juridiques de la redéfinition du statut politique et constitutionnel du Québec »,<br />
Le rapport de la Commission sur l’avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec, Éléments<br />
d’analyse institutionnelle, juridique et démolinguistique pertinents à la révision du statut<br />
politique et constitutionnel du Québec. Document de travail numéro 2, Québec, l er trimestre<br />
1991, p. 81.<br />
86. Ibid., p. 57.<br />
87. Ibid., p. 60.<br />
88. Ibid., p. 64.<br />
89. Ibid., p. 64.<br />
90. Ibid., p. 69.<br />
91. Ibid., p. 68.<br />
92. Ibid., p. 70.<br />
93. Ibid., p. 74.<br />
94. Ibid., p. 78.<br />
95. Ibid., p. 77.<br />
96. Ibid., p. 80.<br />
97. Op. cit., p. 40.<br />
98. Op. cit., p .2.<br />
99. Ibid., p. 1<br />
100. Ibid., p. 2.<br />
101. Ibid., p. 1.<br />
102. Un sondage très fiable du Centre de recherches sur l’opinion publique, effectué pour <strong>La</strong><br />
Presse et le réseau TVA, établit une chute considérable de l’option souverainiste (dans sa<br />
version « molle ») de 64 % en novembre 1990 à 40 % en octobre 1992.<br />
103. L’Actualité,l er novembre 1992, p. 71. Ce dossier, basé sur des documents secrets obtenus par<br />
ce périodique, parut quelques jours avant le référendum du 26 octobre 1992. Il contribua, très<br />
probablement, à la défaite du camp du « Oui » de Bourassa ainsi qu’à la chute de sa cote<br />
personnelle de popularité.<br />
104. <strong>La</strong> Presse, 15 janvier 1993, p. A8.<br />
311
Review Essays<br />
Essais critiques
Michael Oliver<br />
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on<br />
Bilingualism <strong>and</strong> Biculturalism on <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Thought <strong>and</strong> Practice in Canada<br />
Abstract<br />
<strong>The</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong> Biculturalism had an immediate<br />
impact on <strong>the</strong> status <strong>and</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> two official languages of Canada,<br />
especially at <strong>the</strong> federal level of administration. <strong>The</strong> federal Official<br />
<strong>La</strong>nguages Act, in particular, followed its recommendations very closely.<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> key concept of <strong>the</strong> Commission,—equal partnership—had<br />
much less influence. Although accepted at <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> Commission’s<br />
creation, it faded in influence <strong>and</strong> popularity during <strong>the</strong> 1970s <strong>and</strong> 1980s. It is<br />
argued that <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown agreement of <strong>the</strong> Canadian provinces in August<br />
1992 may be seen as a return to an altered <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong>ed version of <strong>the</strong> concept<br />
of equal partnership.<br />
Résumé<br />
<strong>La</strong> Commission royale d’enquête sur le bilinguisme et le biculturalisme a eu<br />
une influence immédiate sur le statut et l’utilisation des deux langues<br />
officielles du Canada, en particulier au sein de l’appareil fédéral. <strong>La</strong> Loi sur<br />
les langues officielles, notamment, respectait scrupuleusement ses<br />
recomm<strong>and</strong>ations. Toutefois, la notion clé qui fondait la position de la<br />
Commission — l’égalité des deux partenaires — a eu une portée beaucoup<br />
plus limitée. Bien qu’admise au moment de la création de la Commission, sa<br />
popularité et son crédit n’ont cessé de diminuer au cours des années 1970 et<br />
1980. L’auteur estime que l’accord intervenu entre les provinces à<br />
Charlottetown en 1992 constitue une version modifiée et élargie de cette<br />
notion d’égalité entre les partenaires.<br />
Accomplishments<br />
<strong>The</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong> Biculturalism (henceforth B &<br />
B Commission) began its work in 1963 <strong>and</strong> completed publication of its<br />
reports in 1970. <strong>The</strong> Preliminary Report of early 1965 <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> General<br />
Introduction <strong>and</strong> Book I on <strong>the</strong> Official <strong>La</strong>nguages, published toge<strong>the</strong>r in<br />
October 1967, carried <strong>the</strong> main <strong>the</strong>mes of <strong>the</strong> Commission’s findings.<br />
Although subsequent reports were far from unnoticed, <strong>the</strong>y did not attract <strong>the</strong><br />
same attention. <strong>The</strong> regional meetings which formed <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong><br />
Preliminary Report <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> formal public hearings of 1966 comm<strong>and</strong>ed at least<br />
as much media notice as <strong>the</strong> Commission’s publications, <strong>and</strong> much of <strong>the</strong><br />
importance of <strong>the</strong> Commission on public consciousness—on <strong>the</strong> way people<br />
defined <strong>and</strong> debated French-English <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r cultural <strong>and</strong> linguistic<br />
problems—came from <strong>the</strong>se meetings <strong>and</strong> media reports on <strong>the</strong>m. When <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
workwascompleted,<strong>the</strong>Commissionerscouldsee<strong>the</strong>irideastranslatedinto<br />
public policy in many different ways.<br />
<strong>The</strong>Official<strong>La</strong>nguagesActof1969embodies<strong>the</strong>substanceofwhat<strong>the</strong>B&B<br />
Commissionhadrecommendedas“<strong>the</strong>keystoneofanygeneralprogrammeof<br />
bilingualisminCanada”(RCBBI1967:138).Itlaidout<strong>the</strong>rulesforlanguage<br />
services <strong>and</strong> for language use. It established <strong>the</strong> Commissioner of Official<br />
<strong>La</strong>nguages <strong>and</strong> gave that officer am<strong>and</strong>ate that followed closely <strong>the</strong> B&B<br />
Commission’s ideas. Transforming amassively English-language federal<br />
publicserviceintoareasonablyeffectivebilingualonechanged<strong>the</strong>character<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> image of <strong>the</strong> Canadian government profoundly. To dismiss this<br />
achievement,asQuebecseparatists(<strong>and</strong>evensomenon-separatists[Guindon<br />
1978])arewonttodo,assomethingQuebecdidnotreallywant,isnonsense.It<br />
was not all that French-Canadians <strong>and</strong> especially Francophone Quebecers<br />
wanted; but it was wanted, <strong>and</strong> strongly dem<strong>and</strong>ed as brief after brief to <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission attested. Because afederal bilingual regime is not asufficient<br />
condition for <strong>the</strong> survival of Canada does not mean that it is not anecessary<br />
condition.<br />
<strong>The</strong> decision of New Brunswick to turn itself into an officially bilingual<br />
province is again a clear implementation of a B & B Commission<br />
recommendation. Ontario’s refusal to do <strong>the</strong> same was equally clearly a<br />
rejection of <strong>the</strong> Commission’s recommendation <strong>and</strong> had quite adifferent<br />
qualitythan<strong>the</strong>traditional sweepingof<strong>the</strong>questionunder<strong>the</strong>provincialrug.<br />
Radio<strong>and</strong>televisionweremadeavailableinbothofficiallanguagesunder<strong>the</strong><br />
auspicesof<strong>the</strong>CanadianRadio<strong>and</strong>TelevisionCommission(CRTC),abody<br />
that was fully cognizant of <strong>the</strong> B&BCommission’s recommendations <strong>and</strong><br />
accepted <strong>the</strong>m. In both federal <strong>and</strong> some provincial bodies, <strong>the</strong> language<br />
prescriptions of <strong>the</strong> Commission were a recognized guide (Frith 1978).<br />
Inalesspreciseway,<strong>the</strong>Commission’sreporthadanenormousinfluenceon<br />
<strong>the</strong>patternoflanguagelearningin<strong>the</strong>country. <strong>The</strong>vastprogramoflanguage<br />
instruction undertaken by <strong>the</strong> federal government followed directly from <strong>the</strong><br />
Official <strong>La</strong>nguages Act. But <strong>the</strong> flowering of French immersion courses<br />
across<strong>the</strong>country<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>widespreadimprovementin<strong>the</strong>teachingofFrench<br />
as asecond language deserve to be counted as indirect products of <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission <strong>and</strong> its work, if not always <strong>the</strong> conscious implementation of its<br />
recommendations in <strong>the</strong> Book on education (RCBB II 1968).<br />
<strong>The</strong> B&BCommission pioneered <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> terms “Anglophone” <strong>and</strong><br />
“Francophone” 1 which have since become st<strong>and</strong>ard in <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
constitutionalvocabulary.<strong>The</strong>useof<strong>the</strong>setermsmadeiteasiertoconcentrate<br />
onlanguagera<strong>the</strong>rthanethnicity,avitalshiftofemphasisthat<strong>the</strong>Commission<br />
promoted to differentiate between <strong>the</strong> positions of <strong>the</strong> “two founding races”<br />
specifiedinitsm<strong>and</strong>ate<strong>and</strong>“o<strong>the</strong>rethnicgroups.” Itactivelydiscouraged<strong>the</strong><br />
use of <strong>the</strong> term “race,” an expression that occurred only in <strong>the</strong> Englishlanguagewordsofitsm<strong>and</strong>ate.<strong>The</strong>Frenchversion,inamuchmoreacceptable<br />
way, spoke of “peuples.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> Mainspring of <strong>the</strong> Commission<br />
Where<strong>the</strong>Commission’sperceptionofCanadahadmostdifficultyimprinting<br />
itselfon<strong>the</strong>politics<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>politicalthoughtof<strong>the</strong>countrywasin<strong>the</strong>concept<br />
of“equalpartnership.”In<strong>the</strong>workingpaperthat<strong>the</strong>Commissionpreparedto<br />
guide those who intended to submit briefs for <strong>the</strong> Commission, “Equal<br />
316
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong><br />
Biculturalism on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Though <strong>and</strong> Practice<br />
partnershipbetween<strong>the</strong>twofoundingraces”wasdescribedas<strong>the</strong>“mainspring<br />
(idée-force)”of<strong>the</strong>termsofreference,<strong>and</strong>consequentlyof<strong>the</strong>Commission.<br />
Yet<strong>the</strong>conceptofequalpartnershipfadedfromviewafter<strong>the</strong>endof<strong>the</strong>1960s<br />
in most English-language commentaries. It remained in some pro-federalist<br />
discourse in <strong>the</strong> French language; but in <strong>the</strong> rhetoric of many Francophone<br />
exponentsoffederalism,itreceivedlittleattention.Liberalswhofollowed<strong>the</strong><br />
intellectual lead of Pierre-Elliott Trudeau were particularly chary of it for<br />
reasons that will become apparent.<br />
Equal Partnership in <strong>the</strong> 1960s<br />
<strong>The</strong>termequalpartnershipwasverywidelyacceptedin<strong>the</strong>early1960swhen<br />
<strong>the</strong> establishment of <strong>the</strong> Commission <strong>and</strong> its terms of reference were<br />
announced. <strong>The</strong> Prime Minister wrote to each of <strong>the</strong> provincial Premiers<br />
eliciting comment on <strong>the</strong> enterprise <strong>and</strong> received replies that, with <strong>the</strong> one<br />
exceptionofPremierManningofAlberta(RCBB1965:App.III),variedfrom<br />
welcomingtoaccepting. Whatdidequalpartnershipmeantothosewhowere<br />
using it happily in <strong>the</strong> 1960s? And how did <strong>the</strong> Commission’s own<br />
amplification of <strong>the</strong> term fit in with <strong>the</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ings of those who wrote<br />
about equal partnership?<br />
In seeking replies to <strong>the</strong>se questions, it is useful to turn to <strong>the</strong> late Donald<br />
Smiley, one of <strong>the</strong> most prolific <strong>and</strong> influential writers on <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>. He began his contributions to <strong>the</strong> constitutional debate in <strong>the</strong><br />
1960s <strong>and</strong> it is possible to follow <strong>the</strong> evolution of his ideas (<strong>and</strong> his use of<br />
variousterms)throughtohisdeathin1990.Hisendorsementof<strong>the</strong>conceptof<br />
equal partnership in 1967 was strong: “Whatever <strong>the</strong> substance of <strong>the</strong> New<br />
NationalPolicy<strong>and</strong>underwhateverpartyauspicesitisundertaken,itmust,to<br />
be successful, be pursued through ‘equal partnership’ between English- <strong>and</strong><br />
French-speaking Canadians” (Smiley 1967: 110-111). He immediately went<br />
ontocontrastindividualrights<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>claimsofcollectivities<strong>and</strong>madeitclear<br />
that<strong>the</strong>partnershehadinmindwereaggregationsofpersonswhohadmadean<br />
individualchoice<strong>and</strong>hadnomore“collective”claimtorecognitionthan,say,<br />
<strong>the</strong>Ascot-tiewearersof<strong>the</strong>country. Thishighlyindividualisticpositionisone<br />
heneverexplicitlymodified,butitprovedadifficultonetoarticulatewithout<br />
strayingintocollectivistterminology.Whileinsistingthatlanguagegroupsare<br />
simply aggregations of individual choosers (<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir presumably minor<br />
children),Smileyalsotalkedoftwo“cultures”<strong>and</strong>of“culturalcommunities”<br />
as part of <strong>the</strong> partnership.<br />
Despite occasional slips, <strong>the</strong> equal partnership of <strong>the</strong> early Smiley was<br />
unflinchingly individualist. Partnership based on equality between cultures<br />
had to be rejected because it undermined majoritarian democracy: “If <strong>the</strong><br />
relevantequalityasdefinedisbetweenculturesoranyo<strong>the</strong>rkindofgrouping,<br />
<strong>and</strong>,asisalmostalways<strong>the</strong>case,<strong>the</strong>numbersofindividualsin<strong>the</strong>segroupings<br />
areunequal,<strong>the</strong>principleofindividualequality<strong>and</strong>itsmajoritariancorollary<br />
must perforce be sacrificed” (Smiley 1967:112). <strong>The</strong> “relevant equality” for<br />
Smiley was between English-speakers <strong>and</strong> French-speakers <strong>and</strong> did not<br />
threaten majoritarianism. <strong>The</strong> proper kind of partnership conferred rights on<br />
individuals to “practice” <strong>the</strong>ir language, much in <strong>the</strong> way that an individual<br />
mightpracticereligion.But<strong>the</strong>rewasanimportantdifferencein<strong>the</strong>obligation<br />
that language rights imposed on <strong>the</strong> state. Religious freedom simply meant<br />
tolerance, except in <strong>the</strong> still controversial field of denominational education<br />
where state subsidy (but not state provision) might be needed. <strong>La</strong>nguage<br />
rights, as Smiley envisaged <strong>the</strong>m, required that federal, provincial <strong>and</strong> local<br />
317
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
publicservicesbeprovidedinei<strong>the</strong>rlanguage.Thisnewpublicresponsibility<br />
requiredbilingualisminalargeproportionofpublicservants. <strong>The</strong>percentage<br />
wouldincreaseifFrench<strong>and</strong>Englishwererecognizednotonlyforserviceto<br />
<strong>the</strong> public but for internal communication.<br />
Smiley did not wince at any of this. For <strong>the</strong> predominantly unilingual<br />
Anglophone public servants, <strong>the</strong> transformation required of <strong>the</strong>m would be<br />
immense; but Smiley assumed <strong>the</strong>y would <strong>and</strong> should bear <strong>the</strong> social costs.<br />
When it came to proposals that gave recognition to a culturally-based<br />
collectivity—a French-Canadian or Québécois nation—his reaction was<br />
totally different. He asked: “under what conceivable set of circumstances<br />
couldEnglish-speakingCanadabeexpectedtofindsuchreformsacceptable?”<br />
(Smiley1967:118). HisanswerwasaquotationfromEugeneForsey:“Some<br />
French-Canadiansseemtobelievethat<strong>the</strong>restofusaresoenamouredof<strong>the</strong>m,<br />
or so convinced we cannot get on without <strong>the</strong>m, that we will pay almost any<br />
price to preserve even <strong>the</strong> most tenuous connection with <strong>the</strong>m. This is a<br />
dangerous delusion” (Forsey 1962:486).<br />
To many Francophone Québécois in <strong>the</strong> 1960s, equal partnership meant just<br />
what Smiley <strong>and</strong> those who thought like him rejected out of h<strong>and</strong>. Quebec<br />
should be recognized in anewly-conceived Confederation as <strong>the</strong> primary<br />
socialunittowhichFrancophonesbelonged,<strong>and</strong>itsgovernmentshouldhave<br />
vestedinit<strong>the</strong>powersnecessaryfor<strong>the</strong>realizationofcollectiveprojects. <strong>The</strong><br />
rightsofFrancophoneminoritiesoutsideQuebecwereofsecondaryconcern.<br />
ItwasutopiantothinkthatpartnershipinCanadaasawholecouldbe“equal”<br />
for Francophones. <strong>The</strong>y would constitute apermanent minority <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> best<br />
<strong>the</strong>y could hope for was areasonable set of minority rights. An equal<br />
relationship could only be achieved if Québécois had <strong>the</strong>ir own majority<br />
community armed with adequate powers. <strong>The</strong>se powers would logically be<br />
much more extensive that those of any o<strong>the</strong>r Canadian province, for <strong>the</strong><br />
citizensofthoseo<strong>the</strong>rprovincesalreadyhad,inCanadaasawhole,astate<strong>and</strong><br />
agovernmentinwhich<strong>the</strong>ywereamajority.<strong>The</strong>essenceofequalpartnership<br />
wasthus<strong>the</strong> provisionofnewpowersforQuebec,ei<strong>the</strong>rasanassociatestate<br />
or as a province with a “special status” (Morin 1965).<br />
Equal Partnership <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Commission<br />
It was not surprising that <strong>the</strong> B&BCommission, h<strong>and</strong>ed am<strong>and</strong>ate that<br />
requireditto“recommendwhatstepsshouldbetakentodevelop<strong>the</strong>Canadian<br />
Confederationon<strong>the</strong>basisofanequalpartnershipbetween<strong>the</strong>twofounding<br />
races,”shouldtakesometimetodecidewhatequalpartnershipmeant. Itwas<br />
fully aware of <strong>the</strong> changes being rung on <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>me of equal partnership in<br />
academic, political <strong>and</strong> media circles <strong>and</strong> fully conscious of <strong>the</strong> mutually<br />
exclusive character of individually-based <strong>and</strong> community-based discussions<br />
of<strong>the</strong>term.<strong>The</strong>definitionitworkedoutoveritsfirstmonthsofmeetingswasa<br />
blendofindividualistic<strong>and</strong>communitarianfeatures.Itcannotbeclaimedthat<br />
itwastotallyconsistentinitsuseofwordslike“society”orthatitreconciled<br />
collective <strong>and</strong> individual perspectives in afully satisfactory way. But in its<br />
initialplanofwork,itlaidoutawayofdefining<strong>and</strong>realizingequalpartnership<br />
that,haditbeenabletocompleteitswork,mighthavegivengreaterstrength<br />
<strong>and</strong> longevity to <strong>the</strong> concept of equal partnership.<br />
<strong>The</strong>Commissionersbelievedthatdevelopingequalpartnershipcouldonlybe<br />
achieved by combining atransformation in <strong>the</strong> language use patterns of<br />
Canada as awhole with afuller recognition of <strong>the</strong> crucial role of Quebec in<br />
318
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong><br />
Biculturalism on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Though <strong>and</strong> Practice<br />
sustaining French Canada. It refused to see action in Quebec alone as <strong>the</strong><br />
remedy to bilingual <strong>and</strong> bicultural imbalance in <strong>the</strong> country. With equal<br />
fervour,itstronglyrejected<strong>the</strong>ideathatofficiallanguagerecognitionwasall<br />
thatwasneeded.Whatitsaidwassomethinglikethis:whatcannotreasonably<br />
be changed at <strong>the</strong> country-wide level, <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> composition <strong>and</strong> language<br />
practicesof<strong>the</strong>nationalgovernment,tomakeFrancophones<strong>the</strong>equalpartners<br />
ofAnglophonesmustbeattainedthroughanenlargedroleforQuebec<strong>and</strong>its<br />
government. If equal partnership meant roughly balancing <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>and</strong><br />
benefitsofbeingCanadianbetweenFrancophones<strong>and</strong>Anglophones,<strong>and</strong>if,at<br />
<strong>the</strong> national level, costs would always be higher <strong>and</strong> benefits less for<br />
Francophones,<strong>the</strong>ncompensatingactionhadtobetakeninQuebectoensure<br />
that benefits to Francophones living <strong>the</strong>re were high enough <strong>and</strong> costs low<br />
enough to get <strong>the</strong> overall balance right, or as nearly right as possible.<br />
<strong>The</strong>searenot<strong>the</strong>Commission’swords. None<strong>the</strong>less,acarefulreadingof<strong>the</strong><br />
“bluepages”thatintroduced<strong>the</strong>finalreport(RCBBI1967:xi-lii)bringsout<br />
<strong>the</strong> “balancing of costs <strong>and</strong> benefits” approach quite unmistakably. Those<br />
pages embody particularly <strong>the</strong> conception of ajust Canada held by André<br />
<strong>La</strong>urendeau who wrote most of this part of <strong>the</strong> Commission’s report. <strong>The</strong>y<br />
document his conviction that <strong>the</strong> work of <strong>the</strong> Commission could not be<br />
completeifitdidnottackle<strong>the</strong>questionof<strong>the</strong>roleofQuebecin<strong>the</strong>bilingualbiculturalbalanceofCanada.<strong>The</strong>commitmenttolookinto<strong>the</strong>constitutional<br />
divisionofpowersbetweenQuebec<strong>and</strong>Ottawa,<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>relationshipbetween<br />
Quebec <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provinces of Canada, is laid out in <strong>the</strong>se terms:<br />
...as soon as ...[a]... minority [such as Canada’s Francophones] is<br />
awareofitscollectivelifeasawhole,itmayverywellaspireto<strong>the</strong><br />
mastery of its own existence <strong>and</strong> begin to look beyond cultural<br />
liberties. It raises <strong>the</strong> question of its political status. It feels that its<br />
future<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>progressofitsculturearenotentirelysecure,that<strong>the</strong>y<br />
are perhaps limited, within apolitical structure dominated by a<br />
majoritycomposedof<strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>rgroup. Consequently,itmovesin<strong>the</strong><br />
direction of greater constitutional autonomy. Ideally, <strong>the</strong> minority<br />
desires<strong>the</strong>sameautonomyfor<strong>the</strong>wholeof<strong>the</strong>communitytowhich<br />
itbelongs;butwhereitcannotattainthisobjective,itmaydecideto<br />
concentrate on <strong>the</strong> more limited political unit in which it is<br />
incontestably <strong>the</strong> majority group.<br />
This viewpoint, so hotly opposed by some, is deeply entrenched in<br />
Quebec. Ithasevenbeen,inrecentyears,at<strong>the</strong>rootofsomeof<strong>the</strong><br />
mostspectacular,ifnot<strong>the</strong>mostserious,manifestationsof<strong>the</strong>crisis<br />
in Canada. To ignore it in this Report would not only constitute an<br />
error;itwouldverylikelymeanthatQuebecwouldrefusetolistento<br />
us, <strong>and</strong> that English-speaking Canada would be deprived of <strong>the</strong><br />
chancetobecomeawareofanespeciallygraveelementin<strong>the</strong>present<br />
situation. (RCBB I 1967: xlvii -xlviii)<br />
In fact, <strong>the</strong> B&BCommission did ignore <strong>the</strong> division of powers between<br />
Quebec <strong>and</strong> Ottawa <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> extent to which equal partnership dem<strong>and</strong>ed<br />
greater autonomy for Quebec. <strong>The</strong> death of André <strong>La</strong>urendeau was acrucial<br />
factorin<strong>the</strong>truncationof<strong>the</strong>Commission’sreport,buto<strong>the</strong>rfactors,including<br />
division <strong>and</strong> fatigue amongst <strong>the</strong> Commissioners, took <strong>the</strong>ir toll, (<strong>La</strong>coste<br />
1990[1] <strong>and</strong> [2]). 2 <strong>The</strong> full concept of equal partnership <strong>and</strong> its implications<br />
for Canadian federalism were <strong>the</strong>refore never fully developed. One can be<br />
319
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
reasonably certain where <strong>La</strong>urendeau himself would have wanted <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission to go, for Claude Ryan has reported that <strong>La</strong>urendeau told him:<br />
“J’ai l’impression qu’éventuellement, nos recherches actuelles pourraient<br />
déboucher sur une formule intermédiaire entre le statut particulier et l’État<br />
associé” (Ryan 1990). But carrying <strong>the</strong> Commission with him would have<br />
been ano<strong>the</strong>r matter.<br />
Distinct Societies <strong>and</strong> O<strong>the</strong>r Ethnic Groups<br />
<strong>The</strong> Commission could have based its justification of <strong>the</strong> concept of equal<br />
partnershipbetweenFrancophones<strong>and</strong>Anglophonessimplyon<strong>the</strong>historical<br />
groundsthat<strong>the</strong>ywere<strong>the</strong>“founding”peoplesofCanada.<strong>The</strong>ychoseinstead<br />
todifferentiatebetween<strong>the</strong>“partners”<strong>and</strong>o<strong>the</strong>rethnicgroupsinsociological<br />
terms. <strong>The</strong> reason why Francophones were quite different from any o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
language <strong>and</strong> cultural group in Canada (except Anglophones) is that<br />
Francophones constituted a “society”. <strong>The</strong> word “society” designated a<br />
complexoforganizations<strong>and</strong>institutionssufficientlyrichtopermit peopleto<br />
leadafulllifein<strong>the</strong>irownlanguage. InQuebec,Francophonescouldfindsuch<br />
a“distinct” society: asubstantial French-speaking population (about four<br />
million),withitsownlegalsystem,<strong>the</strong>CivilCode;itsowneducationsystem;<br />
hospitals,tradeunions<strong>and</strong>anetworkofvoluntaryorganizations;<strong>and</strong>,insome<br />
part,itsowneconomicinstitutions.German-,Ukrainian-,orItalian-speaking<br />
Canadians might have alanguage of <strong>the</strong>ir own, asense of group identity, a<br />
shared history, common customs, common cultural expression in literature,<br />
dance or music; but only English- <strong>and</strong> French-language groups had “distinct<br />
societies,” complete or nearly complete societies. Only English <strong>and</strong> French<br />
Canada could <strong>the</strong>refore be required to give recognition to one ano<strong>the</strong>r as<br />
“equal partners” in Canada.<br />
Citizenswhocamefromo<strong>the</strong>rlanguage<strong>and</strong>culturalgroupswerenot<strong>the</strong>reby<br />
excludedfrom<strong>the</strong>partnership,norrelegated,assomegroupswereclaiming,to<br />
<strong>the</strong> status of second-class citizens. This was because each of <strong>the</strong> two<br />
“societies”ofCanadawasanopensociety. “Whatweareaimingfor,<strong>the</strong>n,is<br />
<strong>the</strong>equalpartnershipofallwhospeakei<strong>the</strong>rlanguage<strong>and</strong>participateinei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
culture,whatever<strong>the</strong>irethnicorigin”(RCBBI1967:xxxix).Membershipin<br />
<strong>the</strong>“foundingpeoples”wasbasedonlearnable,choosableattributes:language<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> culture carried by that language. It did not depend on birth, on<br />
unchangeable,unsheddablecharacteristicslikeethnicoriginorcolour;noron<br />
attributesthatmightbechangeablebutweredeemedirrelevant,likereligion.<br />
For <strong>the</strong> Commission, <strong>the</strong> peoples of <strong>the</strong> partnership <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> societies <strong>the</strong>y<br />
constituted were thus fundamentally different from <strong>the</strong> baskets of individual<br />
atoms that Smiley <strong>and</strong> Forsey believed must be <strong>the</strong> sole objects of public<br />
“partnership” policy. <strong>The</strong>re were some circumstances, notably that of<br />
immigrantsforwhomnei<strong>the</strong>rFrenchnorEnglishwasmo<strong>the</strong>rtongue,when<strong>the</strong><br />
choice of anew “language group” <strong>and</strong> new culture might be acool decision<br />
basedonacalculusofself-interest. Butat<strong>the</strong>coreofbothEnglish-speaking<br />
Canada<strong>and</strong> French-speakingCanadawerepeopleforwhomlanguage,<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong><br />
cultureassociatedwiththatlanguage,weregiven,notchosen.<strong>The</strong>analysisof<br />
<strong>the</strong> Commission clearly implied that to create policy for <strong>the</strong> “partnership” by<br />
pretendingthatFrancophones<strong>and</strong>Anglophonewerechoice-basedaggregations<br />
riskedfailure<strong>and</strong>frustration.<br />
320
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong><br />
Biculturalism on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Though <strong>and</strong> Practice<br />
<strong>The</strong> Decline of Equal Partnership<br />
Shortly after <strong>the</strong> Commission had reported, <strong>the</strong> concept of equal partnership<br />
wentintoasteepdecline.At<strong>the</strong>scholarlylevel,<strong>the</strong>post-B&BCommission<br />
discussionsofFrench-Englishrelationstookastrangeturn. English-language<br />
writerson<strong>the</strong>wholewerefavourabletolanguagechange<strong>and</strong>especiallyto<strong>the</strong><br />
efforts to make <strong>the</strong> French-language capability of <strong>the</strong> federal public service<br />
muchgreater.<strong>The</strong>conceptofabilingualCanadawonmanyconverts,someof<br />
whom went far beyond <strong>the</strong> carefully demarcated official bilingualism of <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission <strong>and</strong> called for personal bilingualism for all Canadians<br />
(Bercovitz<strong>and</strong>Logan1978:253).French-languagewriters,fascinatedby<strong>the</strong><br />
success of <strong>the</strong> Parti Québécois <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> revival of separatist thought,<br />
concentrated on problems of how much jurisdiction aQuebec government<br />
should have. <strong>The</strong> concept of equal partnership, with its roots in French-<br />
Canadian spokesmen like Henri Bourassa <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Quebec literature on a<br />
“compact between nations,” (Anglophone historians viewed any form of <strong>the</strong><br />
compact<strong>the</strong>orywithscepticism<strong>and</strong>suspicion),wasnowbeinghesitantly<strong>and</strong><br />
increasingly rarely enunciated—<strong>and</strong> only in its “linguistic parity” form—by<br />
Anglophones <strong>and</strong> by those federally-oriented Francophones who clustered<br />
around Pierre Trudeau. Equal partnership as aframe for <strong>the</strong> analysis of<br />
Quebec or Canadian politics was largely ignored by <strong>the</strong> history <strong>and</strong> political<br />
science departments of Quebec’s French-language universities.<br />
Whywas<strong>the</strong>possibilityofexaminingQuebec’sclaimsforautonomy<strong>and</strong>for<br />
enhanced powers within <strong>the</strong> framework of equal partnership so rarely<br />
exploited? Inlargepart,onemayconjecture,becauseof<strong>the</strong>failureof<strong>the</strong>B&<br />
BCommission to elaborate that framework as it had promised to do. A<br />
literature could have developed, one may speculate in retrospect, around <strong>the</strong><br />
trade-offs between power <strong>and</strong> recognition for Francophones across Canada<br />
<strong>and</strong>power<strong>and</strong>recognitionforQuebec.InEnglishCanada,comparisonscould<br />
have been made between <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>and</strong> benefits of recognizing Quebec as a<br />
distinctsociety,apttogoitsownway,<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>costs<strong>and</strong>benefitsofincreased<br />
effortstomake<strong>the</strong>publicservicefullyrepresentativeofFrenchCanada<strong>and</strong>to<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>n<strong>the</strong>institutionsof<strong>the</strong>French-languageminoritiesoutsideQuebec.<br />
In French Canada, <strong>and</strong> especially in Quebec, <strong>the</strong> risks of breaking <strong>the</strong><br />
partnership with English Canada ra<strong>the</strong>r than attempting to improve it could<br />
havebeenassessednotonlyineconomists’costs(<strong>the</strong>ineffable“bottomline”)<br />
but in terms of that rare study of Christian Dufour, which grasps <strong>the</strong><br />
interpenetration of French <strong>and</strong> English Canada <strong>and</strong> takes into account social<br />
<strong>and</strong>political(<strong>and</strong>indeedcultural)coststhatabreakin<strong>the</strong>partnershipwould<br />
probably entail (Dufour 1990).<br />
Whatever<strong>the</strong>reasonsmayhavebeen,<strong>the</strong>factof<strong>the</strong>neardisappearanceof<strong>the</strong><br />
concept of equal partnership by <strong>the</strong> late 1980s can readily be documented.<br />
Smiley himself, in <strong>the</strong> few years that separate his enthusiastic espousal of<br />
“individualistic”equalpartnership(1967)<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>publicationofhisstudyon<br />
Canadian federalism for <strong>the</strong> B&BCommission (1970) concentrated on<br />
categoriesofanalysisthatrequiredonlyacasualmention,inquotationmarks,<br />
of“twofoundingraces”(Smiley1970:119). Hisfearthatastatutparticulier<br />
for Quebec was becoming <strong>the</strong> main thrust of Francophone dem<strong>and</strong>s on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>,apossibilitytha<strong>the</strong>hadrecognized<strong>and</strong>flatlyopposedin1967,<br />
perhaps induced afear that continued support for any concept of equal<br />
partnership might reinforce that trend. <strong>The</strong>nceforth, “equal partnership”<br />
disappears from Smiley’s political lexicon.<br />
321
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Wherediditsurvive?WecanfindreferencetoitinJohnMeisel’scontribution<br />
to <strong>the</strong> University of Toronto’s “Options” conference in 1977, where he<br />
described<strong>the</strong>resultsofasurveywhichshowedthatbetween80<strong>and</strong>90percent<br />
ofAnglophonesinCanada“tacitlyreject<strong>the</strong>notionthatthiscountryisbased<br />
on acompact between <strong>the</strong> two founding peoples” (Meisel 1977:16). It is<br />
resoundingly re-endorsed by Davidson Dunton, one of <strong>the</strong> B & B<br />
Commission’s Co-Chairmen, when he called for “a true mutual sense of<br />
equality<strong>and</strong>partnership”(Dunton1978). Butwhenoneturnstocompilations<br />
on Canada’s constitutional problems in <strong>the</strong> 1980s <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> first years of <strong>the</strong><br />
1990s, one is hard put to find “equal partnership” in any o<strong>the</strong>r form than a<br />
quotationfrom<strong>the</strong>B&BCommission’sm<strong>and</strong>ate,on<strong>the</strong>rareoccasionswhen<br />
that Commission is still referred to. 3<br />
<strong>The</strong> disappearance of <strong>the</strong> B&BCommission’s “mainspring” phrase from<br />
scholarlydiscussionsofCanadianpolitics,especiallyin<strong>the</strong>Englishlanguage,<br />
isprobablybestaccountedfor,however,byreasonsrelatingonlyremotelyto<br />
<strong>the</strong> incompleteness of <strong>the</strong> Commission’s final report. <strong>The</strong> following factors<br />
were telling: 1) opposition from anew Liberal Prime Minister of Canada,<br />
Pierre-ElliottTrudeau;2)<strong>the</strong>riseofmulti-culturalism,especiallyinitsinitial<br />
form as a“third force”; 3) <strong>the</strong> increased strength of Western regionalism; 4)<br />
Quebec’s repudiation of bilingualism for <strong>the</strong> province (<strong>and</strong> not just by Parti<br />
Québécoisindépendentistes);5)<strong>the</strong>thrustofclaimsfromindigenouspeoples;<br />
<strong>and</strong>6)<strong>the</strong>emergenceof“<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>”Canadianswithanewsenseofcitizenship.<br />
Prime Minister Trudeau<br />
Trudeau’sthoughton<strong>the</strong>Canadian<strong>Constitution</strong>coincideswiththatof<strong>the</strong>B&<br />
BCommission on <strong>the</strong> meaning of bilingualism <strong>and</strong> on its fundamental<br />
importance. When it comes to equal partnership, as defined by <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission, he is miles away. He summed up <strong>the</strong> difference succinctly in<br />
1988.“Bilingualismunitespeople;dualismdivides<strong>the</strong>m. Bilingualismmeans<br />
thatyoucanspeakto<strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r;dualitymeansyoucanliveinonelanguage<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>restofCanadawillliveinano<strong>the</strong>rlanguage...”(Senate1988). <strong>The</strong>B&B<br />
Commissioninsistedthateffectivepublicrecognitionoftwolanguagesmust<br />
becoupledwithrecognitionofaFrenchsocietyinQuebec,thuspermittinga<br />
duality based on an equilibrium of contexts in which two peoples are<br />
alternately majority <strong>and</strong> minority. Trudeau’s model is quite different <strong>and</strong> a<br />
shared belief in bilingualism as anational policy should not be permitted to<br />
cover up <strong>the</strong> contrasts between <strong>the</strong> two.<br />
Multiculturalism<br />
Canadians who did not come from <strong>the</strong> “two founding races” choked on <strong>the</strong><br />
conceptofequalpartnership.<strong>The</strong>Commissionmadeastrongefforttoexplain<br />
thatitrepudiated<strong>the</strong>word“race”;itsequalpartnershipwasbetweenlanguages<br />
groups into which <strong>the</strong>re was free entry <strong>and</strong>, <strong>the</strong>refore, every citizen was<br />
potentiallyincludedin<strong>the</strong>partnership.Itsbiculturalismwasalsobasedonan<br />
open set of categories, for by adopting one or o<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> two official<br />
languages one could enter into <strong>the</strong> culture for which that language was <strong>the</strong><br />
major vehicle. Finally, <strong>the</strong> Commission proposed ways by which <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
cultural groups might maintain <strong>the</strong>ir vitality <strong>and</strong> contribute to Canadian<br />
enrichment.Indoingso,itwascarefulnottogivecredenceto<strong>the</strong>ideathatby<br />
adding toge<strong>the</strong>r all <strong>the</strong> “o<strong>the</strong>r” ethnic groups in Canada, one could identify a<br />
“third force,” non-French, non-English, that rivalled <strong>the</strong> founding peoples in<br />
significance. André <strong>La</strong>urendeau was particularly unconvinced by an<br />
322
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong><br />
Biculturalism on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Though <strong>and</strong> Practice<br />
arithmetic that added Chinese, Italian, Caribbean <strong>and</strong> Slavic Canadians<br />
toge<strong>the</strong>rtocreateasummedsocialentityequivalenttoFrenchCanada.<strong>The</strong>B<br />
&BCommission concluded that: “All <strong>the</strong> available evidence indicates that<br />
those of o<strong>the</strong>r languages <strong>and</strong> cultures are more or less integrated with <strong>the</strong><br />
Francophone <strong>and</strong> Anglophone communities, where <strong>the</strong>y should find<br />
opportunitiesforself-fulfilment<strong>and</strong>equalityofstatus. Itiswithin<strong>the</strong>setwo<br />
societiesthat<strong>the</strong>irculturaldistinctivenessshouldfindaclimateofrespect<strong>and</strong><br />
encouragement to survive” (RCBB IV 1970:10).<br />
None of this flattened <strong>the</strong> wave of resentment against equal partnership that<br />
came from <strong>the</strong> politicians <strong>and</strong> associations that spoke for <strong>the</strong> citizens <strong>and</strong><br />
descendants of citizens who came from non-Anglophone, non- Francophone<br />
countries. Shortly after Trudeau became Prime Minister, multiculturalism<br />
replacedbiculturalismasofficialpolicy<strong>and</strong>inofficialrhetoric.Thatelement<br />
of“equalpartnership”thatcamefromarecognitionof“founding”cultures—<br />
thosewhogave<strong>the</strong>originalshape<strong>and</strong>characterto<strong>the</strong>statethatwascreatedin<br />
1867<strong>and</strong>in<strong>the</strong>yearsbefore—wasthusundermined,<strong>and</strong>using<strong>the</strong>term“equal<br />
partnership”becamemoretouchy.AspokesmanforUkrainianCanadianswas<br />
using language quite acceptable to many ethnocultural minority associations<br />
when he referred to “<strong>the</strong> outdated <strong>and</strong> discredited concept of two founding<br />
nations” (Special Joint Committee 1987 [2]).<br />
Western Assertions<br />
Often <strong>the</strong> term “regionalism” is used to describe <strong>the</strong> campaign for greater<br />
recognition that became afixed (though by no means novel) part of western<br />
Canadian politics during <strong>the</strong> 70s, 80s <strong>and</strong> 90s. But though echoes of protest<br />
againstcentralCanadi<strong>and</strong>ominancecamefrom<strong>the</strong>Atlantic<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>North,<strong>the</strong><br />
constitutional position that regional equilibrium was just as important as<br />
French-Englishequilibriumgaineditsgreateststrengthin<strong>the</strong>West.Smileyis<br />
undoubtedlycorrectwhenheinterprets<strong>the</strong>1979Pepin-RobartsReport’supgradingof“regionalcleavage”toalmost<strong>the</strong>samelevelas<strong>the</strong>French-English<br />
cleavage as <strong>the</strong> consequence of primarily Western pressures (Task Force on<br />
Canadian Unity 1979). It is not tempting to base analysis of Canadian<br />
constitutional problems primarily on “equal partnership” between<br />
Francophones <strong>and</strong> Anglophones if regionalism is almost as important.<br />
Quebec’s Dilution of Quebec Bilingualism<br />
Among English-speaking Canadians, “equal partnership” meant putting <strong>the</strong><br />
French language on <strong>the</strong> same plane as English for federal government<br />
operations across Canada, <strong>and</strong> increased recognition of French by provincial<br />
governments with significant Francophone populations. Bilingualism as<br />
publicpolicywas“equalpartnership.”ForaQuebecgovernmenttoreduce<strong>the</strong><br />
extent to which it gave recognition to bilingualism thus meant that “equal<br />
partnership” was undermined in aradical fashion. Whatever temptation one<br />
mighthavehadtomakeuseof<strong>the</strong>conceptseemedtoevaporateifthatwasnot<br />
afterallwhatQuebecreallywanted.ThataseparatistpartyinpowerinQuebec<br />
passed alanguage law (Bill 101) that reduced Anglophone’s rights <strong>and</strong><br />
privileges might be underst<strong>and</strong>able: <strong>the</strong> separatist Parti Québécois had no<br />
interest in“equal partnership”within <strong>the</strong>Canadian federal system. Butfor a<br />
Liberal party government to override <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court <strong>and</strong> pass an only<br />
slightly less restrictive law (Bill 178) seemed to make nonsense of equalpartnership-as-bilingualism.<br />
323
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Claims from Indigenous Peoples<br />
<strong>The</strong>B&BCommissionwasquiteconsciousthatinclusionofCanada’snative<br />
peoplesin<strong>the</strong>fundamentalpartnershipcouldnotbeaccomplishedinexactly<br />
<strong>the</strong> same way as <strong>the</strong>y had deemed appropriate for “allophones.” <strong>The</strong>y noted<br />
that<strong>the</strong>ywere“lessintegratedin<strong>the</strong>lifeof<strong>the</strong>Canadiancommunitythanany<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rgroup<strong>and</strong>wouldthusrequirespecialstudy”(RCBB1965:22).InBookI<br />
of<strong>the</strong>finalreport,<strong>the</strong>“BluePages”referagainto“verycomplexproblems”of<br />
integration<strong>and</strong>urgethat“helpbegivento<strong>the</strong>nativepopulationstopreserve<br />
<strong>the</strong>irculturalheritage”<strong>and</strong>thatnecessarystepsbetakentoassure<strong>the</strong>survival<br />
of<strong>the</strong>Eskimolanguage<strong>and</strong>“<strong>the</strong>mostcommonIndi<strong>and</strong>ialects”(RCBB1967:<br />
xxvi-xxvii). How <strong>the</strong> special characteristics of indigenous cultures fit <strong>the</strong><br />
concept of partnership is left unexamined, although <strong>the</strong> use of “integration”<br />
seemstoprejudgethatquestion,<strong>and</strong>itisnotsurprisingthatthosewhospeak<br />
for<strong>the</strong>nativepeopleshavehad,since<strong>the</strong>n,littletimeorsympathyfor“equal<br />
partnershipbetween<strong>the</strong>twofoundingraces.”Recognitionin<strong>the</strong>Meech<strong>La</strong>ke<br />
Accord that <strong>the</strong> existence of English-speaking <strong>and</strong> French-speaking<br />
Canadians “constitutes afundamental characteristic of Canada” <strong>and</strong> that it is<br />
<strong>the</strong>roleof<strong>the</strong>ParliamentofCanada<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>provinciallegislaturestopreserve<br />
this fundamental characteristic (<strong>Constitution</strong> Act, 1987. 1.2.(1) (a) <strong>and</strong> 1.2)<br />
provokedanger<strong>and</strong>dismayin<strong>the</strong>leadersofindigenousgroups<strong>and</strong>adem<strong>and</strong><br />
for constitutional recognition of aboriginal peoples as distinct societies that<br />
constitute afundamental characteristic of Canada (Special Joint Committee<br />
1987[2}).<br />
“<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>” Canadians<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is acertain irony in <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> late John Porter used to label<br />
English- <strong>and</strong> French-Canadians as <strong>the</strong> two “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>” groups in Canadian<br />
society (Porter 1964). By <strong>the</strong> 1990s, references to <strong>the</strong> “<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>” meant <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>ofRights<strong>and</strong>Freedoms,<strong>and</strong>ProfessorCairnshadlaunched<strong>the</strong>ideaof<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>Canadians“whosee<strong>the</strong>mselvesascitizensofanationalcommunity”<br />
(Cairns 1989:118). Cairns identifies an “implicit <strong>and</strong> explicit assumption of<br />
groups <strong>and</strong> interests defined by gender, by ethnicity, by aboriginal<br />
background,bysocialpolicyconcerns,<strong>and</strong>bybasicconceptionsofanational<br />
communityofrightsbearersthat<strong>the</strong>Canadianconstitutionof<strong>the</strong>lateeighties<br />
withits<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>ofRightsisacitizens’constitution”(117).For<strong>the</strong>m,<strong>the</strong>idea<br />
of equal partnership is far from <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> Canadian state; it is close to<br />
being <strong>the</strong> anti<strong>the</strong>sis of what <strong>the</strong>y believe Canada should be. Cairns suggests<br />
that<strong>the</strong>ybegantodefine<strong>the</strong>mselvesthrough<strong>the</strong>battles<strong>the</strong>yfoughtagainst<strong>the</strong><br />
B&BCommission’s conception of equal partnership. <strong>The</strong> groups whose<br />
members are <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Canadians “have <strong>the</strong>ir separate histories of<br />
triumphs—memories of when biculturalism was replaced with<br />
multiculturalism,when<strong>the</strong>ywonS28[women’srights],when<strong>the</strong>iraboriginal<br />
rightsreceivedconstitutionalrecognition”(118).Inshort,memoriesofwhen<br />
<strong>the</strong>y eroded <strong>the</strong> concept of an equal partnership between <strong>the</strong> two founding<br />
peoples.<br />
With faulty interpretation, academic rejection (or at least neglect) <strong>and</strong> a<br />
complexofpoliticalforcessuchasthosedescribedabovearrayedagainstit,it<br />
would not be surprising if <strong>the</strong> concept of equal partnership was deemed to<br />
meritpermanentinterment.Iamgoingtoargueagainstburial.Forwithallits<br />
faults equal partnership provides astarting point, in its B&BCommission<br />
version, for a <strong>the</strong>oretical justification of <strong>the</strong> seemingly incoherent<br />
compromises in <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Agreement of August 1992.<br />
324
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong><br />
Biculturalism on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Though <strong>and</strong> Practice<br />
<strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Agreement<br />
<strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Agreement can be seen as acombination of just those<br />
elementsthat<strong>the</strong>B&BCommissioninsistedwouldhavetogointoanequal<br />
partnership. Indeed, <strong>the</strong> Agreement can be seen as a more extensive<br />
embodiment of those principles than were <strong>the</strong> recommendations of <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission itself.<br />
<strong>The</strong>costsofbeingFrancophoneinCanadaasawholehavebeencontrolled<br />
<strong>and</strong> afloor has been put under <strong>the</strong>m. Each Canadian government has <strong>the</strong><br />
obligationtoprotectboth<strong>the</strong>English<strong>and</strong>Frenchlanguages;<strong>the</strong>representation<br />
ofQuebeccannotfallbelow25percentin<strong>the</strong>HouseofCommons;<strong>and</strong>double<br />
majorities in <strong>the</strong> new Senate are needed for <strong>the</strong> passage of bills on language<br />
questions. Quebec is recognized as constituting adistinct society within<br />
Canada. Quebec’s right to name <strong>the</strong> three Civil <strong>La</strong>w judges who sit on <strong>the</strong><br />
Supreme Court of Canada is spelled out.<br />
For indépendentistes, <strong>the</strong> Agreement is disastrous. It knits Quebec <strong>and</strong><br />
Francophone Canadians as awhole more closely into <strong>the</strong> fabric of <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadianstatethaneverbefore.But<strong>the</strong>Agreementisalsoworrisomeforthose<br />
Quebecerswhoarenotquiteseparatist.ThosewhowantQuebecuntil<strong>the</strong>last<br />
possiblemomenttobeunencumberedwithagreed-uponties<strong>and</strong>interlinkages<br />
withCanada,sothatQuebeccankeeponaddingtoitslevelofautonomy,keep<br />
movingeverclosertosovereignindependencewithouthavingtopay<strong>the</strong>final<br />
cost of getting <strong>the</strong>re—those Quebec nationalists too have greeted <strong>the</strong><br />
Agreement with dismay. Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir, in her remarkable<br />
editorial“LeMur”called<strong>the</strong>Agreementa“triomphedel’espritminoritaire”<br />
(LeDevoir,24August1992).And,inonesense,indeeditwas.Francophones<br />
whoare<strong>and</strong>willbeaminorityinCanadaasawholeforaslongasitpersists<br />
have gained abroader set of minority rights than <strong>the</strong>y have ever enjoyed<br />
before. Nothing has been lost from <strong>the</strong> first great push towards reducing <strong>the</strong><br />
costs of being Francophone in Canada—marked by <strong>the</strong> federal Official<br />
<strong>La</strong>nguagesAct,byNewBrunswickbecominganofficiallybilingualprovince,<br />
<strong>and</strong>bygainsineducation<strong>and</strong> in<strong>the</strong>courts—<strong>and</strong>agreatdealhasbeenadded.<br />
Ifthatwereall,<strong>the</strong>n<strong>the</strong>Agreementcouldfinditsplacein<strong>the</strong>time-honoured<br />
categoryofminorityrights,<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>conceptofequalpartnershipcouldremain<br />
tuckedawayin<strong>the</strong>atticofoutmodedconstitutionalfashions.Butitisnotall.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Agreement preserves all <strong>the</strong> elements of community<br />
recognitionforQuebec’sdistinctsocietythatwerein<strong>the</strong>Meech<strong>La</strong>keaccord<br />
<strong>and</strong> embeds <strong>the</strong>m in a complex of o<strong>the</strong>r community recognitions. <strong>The</strong><br />
communities of native peoples have <strong>the</strong>ir inherent right to self-government<br />
acknowledged; provincial communities receive “partnership” recognition in<br />
<strong>the</strong> equal Senate, <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> process, awestern community viewpoint is<br />
validated.Canadabecomesa“communityofcommunities”inaformalsense.<br />
<strong>The</strong>importofQuebecbeingrecognizedasadistinctsocietyisnotdiminished<br />
by <strong>the</strong> new recognitions of community. But <strong>the</strong> contextual change alters its<br />
significance. First, it becomes impossible for Anglophones to dismiss <strong>the</strong><br />
Agreementonadistinctsocietyasjustasano<strong>the</strong>r“concessionto<strong>the</strong>French,”<br />
forabroadlysimilar“concession”hasbeenmadetonativepeoples.Secondly,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Agreement underlines <strong>the</strong> obligation for Quebec as well as <strong>the</strong> rest of<br />
Canadatoaskitselfwhatapartnershipwithself-governingnativepeopleswill<br />
mean,<strong>and</strong>challengesQuebectofindwaysofreconciling<strong>the</strong>argumentsthatit<br />
hasusedfordem<strong>and</strong>ingpowersforitselfwiththosethatwillbepresented,in<br />
only slightly modified form, by indigenous peoples.<br />
325
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
<strong>The</strong>crucialinsightof<strong>the</strong>B&BCommissionwasthatastablebaseforFrench-<br />
English cooperation cannot be achieved just by increasing French minority<br />
rightsinCanadaasawhole(seenasasinglecommunity)butmustalsoinvolve<br />
<strong>the</strong> exercise of aset of powers, adequate for community development, by a<br />
community jurisdiction (Quebec) in which <strong>the</strong> country- wide minority<br />
(Francophones)isamajority.Thisinsight,<strong>the</strong>sensegivenby<strong>the</strong>Commission<br />
to<strong>the</strong>conceptofequalpartnership,hasnowbeenembodiedinnew,complex,<br />
but ultimately compatible ways, in <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord. Indeed, its<br />
approach to partnership has been extended to o<strong>the</strong>r communities—ethnic<br />
communities,provincialcommunities—<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>challengeofworkingout<strong>the</strong><br />
terms of different kinds of partnerships is thrust inexorably upon Canadians.<br />
Had <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Agreement, by referendum <strong>and</strong> by legislative<br />
enactment, become <strong>the</strong> new base for Canada’s <strong>Constitution</strong>, many people<br />
would have explained this fact as <strong>the</strong> acceptance of a hodgepodge of<br />
compromises by apopulation suffering from <strong>Constitution</strong>-fatigue. If that<br />
attitudepersists,<strong>the</strong>possibilityofanystablenewarrangementsfor<strong>the</strong>future,<br />
basedinsomemeasureon<strong>the</strong>Agreement,willbejeopardized,foreventually<br />
most of us want to find coherence in our behaviour. Any new constitution<br />
should reside in a“house of <strong>the</strong>ory.” 4 Are <strong>the</strong> architects’ drawings for that<br />
house available? Perhaps not, but preliminary sketches can be found.<br />
Individuals <strong>and</strong> Communities<br />
Recognition of community rights still arouses deep disquiet among many,<br />
especiallyEnglishCanadians,whobelievethatcommunityrightsnecessarily<br />
jeopardizeindividualrights.Thisdisquietemanatesfrom<strong>the</strong>classicalliberalindividualistposition<strong>and</strong>ithasatleasttwoaspects.<br />
First,itisarguedthat<strong>the</strong><br />
stateshouldnotsubsidizeparticularobjectivesofparticulargroupswithfunds<br />
thatcomefromcitizensmostofwhomdonotshare,<strong>and</strong>mayindeedbehostile<br />
to, <strong>the</strong>se objectives. For a country where public subsidization of<br />
denominationalschoolsisacommonplace,thispositionmayseemstrange;yet<br />
itsstrengthisundeniable. RecognitionofadistinctQuebecsociety<strong>and</strong>of<strong>the</strong><br />
inherentrightofaboriginalsocietiestoself-government,itissaid,willleadto<br />
public resources being diverted to particular groups to which most citizens<br />
cannot,ordonotwantto,belong.Secondly,itismaintainedthatrecognizing<br />
rightsforsomecommunities<strong>and</strong>noto<strong>the</strong>rsdividescitizensintofirst-class<strong>and</strong><br />
second-classcategories.IfFrancophonesinQuebecaretoberecognizedasa<br />
distinct society, why not Ukrainians in Manitoba? If aboriginals have an<br />
inherent right to self-government, why not Japanese Canadians?<br />
Justifying rights to communities means recognizing that diversity, more<br />
profound than <strong>the</strong> differences taken into account in pluralist <strong>the</strong>ory,<br />
characterizes <strong>the</strong> Canadian state. Charles Taylor argues cogently that<br />
Canadiansmustthinkthrough<strong>the</strong>implicationsof“deepdiversity”muchmore<br />
thoroughly than <strong>the</strong>y have done in <strong>the</strong> past (Taylor 1991). Historically,<br />
Anglophones especially were reluctant to do so because <strong>the</strong>y hoped that<br />
eventually all citizens would see <strong>the</strong>mselves in <strong>the</strong>ir relation to <strong>the</strong> state in<br />
roughly <strong>the</strong> same way. Industrialism, secularism, <strong>and</strong> urbanization were all<br />
supposedtoreduce<strong>the</strong>specificityinself-definitionofQuebec’sFrancophones<br />
<strong>and</strong>tomakeitpossibletotreat<strong>the</strong>masindividualslikeall<strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>rindividuals<br />
inCanada.ButQuebecnationalismbecamestrongernotweaker;<strong>the</strong>hopefora<br />
homogeneity of outlook became more <strong>and</strong> more illusory.<br />
326
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong><br />
Biculturalism on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Though <strong>and</strong> Practice<br />
Liberal <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>and</strong> Equal Partnership<br />
<strong>The</strong>reisawayoflookingatCanada’senduringdualism,awayofreconciling<br />
oneselftoarecognitionofQuebec’sdistinctness,thatdoesnotoffendliberal<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory. This is so because liberal <strong>the</strong>ory cannot specify <strong>the</strong> “right” body of<br />
citizens to constitute astate. If some part of <strong>the</strong> citizenry of astate decides<br />
to—<strong>and</strong>isableto—constituteanewstateinwhich<strong>the</strong>freedomofallisfully<br />
protected <strong>and</strong> individual rights are meticulously respected, liberal <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
cannotprovideareasonwhythisnewstateisinferiorto<strong>the</strong>onefromwhichit<br />
brokeaway. Indeed,mostliberal<strong>the</strong>orysimplyassumesthatanexistingstate<br />
is<strong>the</strong>frameworkinwhichindividualsassert<strong>the</strong>irrights,including<strong>the</strong>rightto<br />
haveallkeypublicinstitutionsrunin<strong>the</strong>irownlanguage<strong>and</strong>accordingto<strong>the</strong>ir<br />
culturalnorms<strong>and</strong>style. IfliberalscouldprovethatCanadaincludingQuebec<br />
was<strong>the</strong>unique“right”stateforallindividualswithinittorealize<strong>the</strong>irrights,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n<strong>the</strong>caseforsubsidizing<strong>the</strong>peculiarlanguagepreferences<strong>and</strong>ahighlevel<br />
ofautonomyforsomelargesubsetofindividualswouldindeedbedifficultto<br />
bringunder<strong>the</strong>liberal<strong>the</strong>oreticalumbrella. Sincenosuchproofisavailable<br />
<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>possibilityofaseparate(stillliberal)Quebecstateisfarfrombeinga<br />
chimera, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> problems of Francophone-Anglophone relations can quite<br />
properly be dealt with by <strong>the</strong> most libertarian of liberals as aproblem of <strong>the</strong><br />
termsofpartnership.BecauseFrancophoneQuébécoisdoconstituteadistinct<br />
society,capableofformingastateof<strong>the</strong>irown,<strong>the</strong>ycomm<strong>and</strong>recognitionas<br />
such in a way no o<strong>the</strong>r linguistic or cultural group does.<br />
<strong>The</strong> case for special recognition of <strong>the</strong> communities of indigenous peoples<br />
cannotbemadeinthisway,butWillKymlickahasshownhowit,too,isquite<br />
reconcilable with liberalism (Kymlicka 1989 <strong>and</strong> 1991). His arguments also<br />
applytoo<strong>the</strong>rculturalgroups. Hebeginsbysummarizing<strong>the</strong>orthodoxliberal<br />
position that asystem of universal individual rights is all that is needed to<br />
protectculturaldifferences. Freedomofassociationiseveryone’sright<strong>and</strong>it<br />
enablesaculturalgroupthatwantstopreserveitsdistinctnesstodoso,aslong<br />
asitcancompetein<strong>the</strong>“culturalmarketplace.”“Onthisview,givingpolitical<br />
recognition or support to particular cultural practices or associations is<br />
unnecessary<strong>and</strong>unfair.Itisunnecessary,becauseavaluablewayoflifewill<br />
havenodifficultyattractingadherents. Anditisunfair,becauseitsubsidizes<br />
some people’s choices at <strong>the</strong> expense of o<strong>the</strong>rs.” Kymlicka <strong>the</strong>n shows that<br />
somegroupsareunfairlydisadvantagedin<strong>the</strong>culturalmarketplace. Minority<br />
cultures are under constant pressure from <strong>the</strong> majority that surrounds <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y have to struggle to survive, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y do so since “language <strong>and</strong> culture<br />
provide <strong>the</strong> context within which we make our choices. Loss of cultural<br />
membership, <strong>the</strong>refore, is aprofound harm that reduces one’s very ability to<br />
make meaningful choices. Hence special rights compensate for unequal<br />
circumstances which put <strong>the</strong> members of minority cultures at asystematic<br />
disadvantagein<strong>the</strong>culturalmarketplace,regardlessof<strong>the</strong>irpersonalchoices<br />
in life (Kymlicka forthcoming).<br />
Ifclaimsforcommunityaremadeinei<strong>the</strong>rof<strong>the</strong>waysoutlined,<strong>the</strong>casefor<br />
constitutional recognition of Quebec’s distinct society <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> case for selfgovernment<br />
for aboriginal peoples can be made without doing violence to<br />
liberal <strong>the</strong>ory. Both instances exemplify <strong>the</strong> fundamental premise that equal<br />
partnershipamongcommunities,achievedbychanging<strong>the</strong>balanceofcost<strong>and</strong><br />
benefits, is agoal that can be reconciled with <strong>the</strong> goal of personal equality<br />
amongst citizens <strong>and</strong> equal respect for <strong>the</strong> choices that persons make.<br />
327
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Aboriginal Communities <strong>and</strong> Multiculturalism<br />
Towhatextentcan<strong>the</strong>“equalopportunity”argumentthatjustifiesaboriginal<br />
community claims—<strong>the</strong> difficulty for aboriginal people of gaining access to<br />
<strong>the</strong> same range of personal choices available to members of <strong>the</strong> majority<br />
culture—also be used to advance claims for special cultural recognition by<br />
membersofimmigrantculturalgroups?Undeniably,immigrantswouldfindit<br />
easiertoleadfulllivesinCanadaif<strong>the</strong>yretained<strong>the</strong>culturalsupportsthatuse<br />
of<strong>the</strong>irlanguage<strong>and</strong>afamiliarculturalenvironmentprovide. In<strong>the</strong>nameof<br />
consistency, should some measure of community self-government be made<br />
available to o<strong>the</strong>r ethnic groups? Kymlicka suggests that <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
immigrants chose to come to Canada means that <strong>the</strong>y “<strong>the</strong>reby relinquished<br />
some of <strong>the</strong>ir rights to cultural protection that <strong>the</strong>y would have had in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
originalhomel<strong>and</strong>.”(Kymlicka1991).Thisdistinctionisnotfullysatisfactory<br />
since <strong>the</strong> “choice” made by at least one class of immigrants, refugees, is far<br />
from free. Tests of “practicability” (is <strong>the</strong>re apopulation concentration that<br />
permits alarge measure of community self-determination?) <strong>and</strong> will (how<br />
much cultural isolation, <strong>the</strong> concomitant of communal particularism, is<br />
desired?)maybepreferable. <strong>The</strong>B&BCommission’sdecisiontoconfineits<br />
discussions of partnership to Francophone/Anglophone relations <strong>and</strong> to be<br />
satisfiedwithminority/majorityrelationsforo<strong>the</strong>rethnicgroupsisnohelpasa<br />
guide to amore satisfying position. <strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Accord made no<br />
advanceoverSection27of<strong>the</strong><strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>ofRights<strong>and</strong>Freedoms,whichstates:<br />
“This<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>shallbeinterpretedinamannerconsistentwith<strong>the</strong>preservation<br />
<strong>and</strong> enhancement of <strong>the</strong> multicultural heritage of Canadians.” <strong>The</strong> house of<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory, quite sturdy where it covers a“distinct society” for Quebec <strong>and</strong> selfgovernment<br />
for aboriginals, has a ramshackle multicultural wing.<br />
Streng<strong>the</strong>ningitprobablyinvolvesacontinuingdialecticbetweenconceptsof<br />
cultural partnership <strong>and</strong> equal personal rights.<br />
A Complex of Equalities<br />
<strong>The</strong>CharlottetownAgreementnotonlydem<strong>and</strong>sthatliberalindividualismbe<br />
reconciled with acultural collective perspective, it also requires abridging<br />
with o<strong>the</strong>r collectivities. <strong>The</strong> main thrust of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong><br />
Freedomsisundoubtedlythatofindividualrights,butindividualismhastolive<br />
withfederalism<strong>and</strong>with<strong>the</strong>pluralismthathasbecomesointegralapartof<strong>the</strong><br />
liberal-democratic state. Even <strong>the</strong> most fervent advocate of equal individual<br />
rightsdoesnotquestion<strong>the</strong>restrictionon<strong>the</strong>freedomofaSaskatchewancar<br />
driverwhomightwanttodisplayaNewBrunswicklicenceplateorobjectto<br />
one province’s sales tax being higher than ano<strong>the</strong>r. <strong>Federalism</strong> means that<br />
Canadians’rightsvaryaccordingto<strong>the</strong>provincialorterritorialcollectivitiesto<br />
which<strong>the</strong>ybelong.<strong>The</strong><strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>simplymakes“fundamental”rightsidentical<br />
throughoutCanada. Similarly,tradeunions,professionalassociations,clubs<br />
<strong>and</strong>societiesbestowspecialrights<strong>and</strong>responsibilitieson<strong>the</strong>irmembers,<strong>and</strong><br />
as long as <strong>the</strong>se collectivities can be entered <strong>and</strong> left without unreasonable<br />
barriers having to be crossed, we not only accept differential rights being<br />
bestowedon<strong>the</strong>irmembers,butvalue<strong>the</strong>differences.Fewliberal-democrats<br />
today share Rousseau’s worry that pluralism creates particular wills that<br />
threaten <strong>the</strong> general good.<br />
Alan Cairns’ contention that <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Canadians saw <strong>the</strong>ir rights trampled on<br />
by governments who met toge<strong>the</strong>r in secret at Meech <strong>La</strong>ke to redistribute<br />
rights, describes aposition held by many Canadians. <strong>The</strong> extensive hearings<br />
acrossCanadathatpreceded<strong>the</strong>negotiationsleading<strong>the</strong>1992Charlottetown<br />
328
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong><br />
Biculturalism on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Though <strong>and</strong> Practice<br />
Agreement were a needed response to <strong>the</strong> widespread feeling that <strong>the</strong><br />
procedures of executive federalism were sadly lacking. But if <strong>the</strong> contrast<br />
between “people” <strong>and</strong> “governments” is pushed as far as Cairns does in<br />
<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> versus <strong>Federalism</strong> (Cairns 1992), it underestimates <strong>the</strong> strong<br />
attachmenttoprovince,<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>sensethat<strong>the</strong>provincialgovernmentis<strong>the</strong>ir<br />
government,thatmanyCanadiansdisplay<strong>and</strong>thatisgivennewsaliencein<strong>the</strong><br />
equalSenaterepresentationof<strong>the</strong>CharlottetownAgreement.<strong>The</strong>strengthof<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s for more direct democracy can be taken into account without an<br />
inference that representative democracy at <strong>the</strong> provincial level has been<br />
discredited. <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> Canadians give primacy to <strong>the</strong> single community of all<br />
Canadians. <strong>The</strong> Charlottetown Agreement, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> procedures leading to it,<br />
grantmuchto<strong>the</strong><strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>Canadianposition,but<strong>the</strong>Accordinsistsonrespect<br />
forthosemanyo<strong>the</strong>rCanadianswhomayseeo<strong>the</strong>rcommunities,o<strong>the</strong>rforms<br />
of collective identity—whe<strong>the</strong>r distinguished by language, province, region,<br />
religionorassociation—asvaluedframeworksfor<strong>the</strong>irself-realization.Intercommunity<br />
partnership models may seem much more appropriate, even<br />
thoughagreementsunder<strong>the</strong>mmustbeworkedoutbyindirect,representative,<br />
democratic forms, than <strong>the</strong> direct democracy of identical-rights-bearing<br />
Canadians.<br />
Cairns, of course, is fully aware that federalism, with its stress on provinces<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir governments, is something that even <strong>the</strong> most ardent <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong><br />
Canadians must <strong>and</strong> do accept. He identifies as <strong>the</strong> challenge for Canadian<br />
constitutional renewal—a challenge that was met for better or worse in<br />
Charlottetown in August 1992—<strong>the</strong> simultaneous realization of three<br />
equalities: of citizens, of provinces <strong>and</strong> of two nations (Cairns 1991:77).<br />
Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se are exactly <strong>the</strong> right, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> only right, kinds of equality that<br />
Canadamustseektoachieveismuchlessimportantthan<strong>the</strong>re-appearancein<br />
scholarly writing of <strong>the</strong> concept of equal partnerships. One can hope that it<br />
heraldsadecisivedeparturefrom<strong>the</strong>discourseofmajority-minorityrelations,<br />
<strong>and</strong> of asingle, st<strong>and</strong>ardized relationship between each citizen <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> state,<br />
thatsoinhibits<strong>the</strong>searchfor“newequalities.” Canada’sfirststepawayfrom<br />
<strong>the</strong>singlecommunitymodelexemplifiedinparliamentarydemocracycamein<br />
1867 with its adoption of federalism. <strong>Federalism</strong> means co-ordinate powers<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than ahierarchy of decentralization, <strong>and</strong> recognizes <strong>the</strong> validity of<br />
communities,basedongeography,withinapolity. Taking<strong>the</strong>nextstep,<strong>and</strong><br />
recognizingFrancophone-Anglophonedualism;<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>ntakingano<strong>the</strong>rstep<br />
<strong>and</strong> recognizing <strong>the</strong> inherent right to self-government of communities of<br />
indigenous people; <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n taking yet ano<strong>the</strong>r step <strong>and</strong> working out <strong>the</strong><br />
complexities of multiculturalism; <strong>and</strong> doing all this without destroying <strong>the</strong><br />
integrity of <strong>the</strong> community of all Canadians, exemplified by <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>—<br />
<strong>the</strong>se are <strong>the</strong> challenges which were accepted at Charlottetown. It will be<br />
fascinating to see whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> “house of <strong>the</strong>ory” that can accommodate <strong>the</strong><br />
various partnerships <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir various equalities can be built.<br />
Conclusion<br />
This essay was written before <strong>the</strong> rejection by referendum of <strong>the</strong><br />
Charlottetown Agreement <strong>and</strong> has been revised only very lightly. It is too<br />
early to predict when <strong>and</strong> precisely how <strong>the</strong> constitutional foundations of<br />
Canadawillagainhead<strong>the</strong>policyagenda.<strong>The</strong>problems<strong>the</strong>Agreementwas<br />
intended to answer have not disappeared, however, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> task of finding a<br />
satisfactory <strong>the</strong>oretic basis for <strong>the</strong> Canadian polity remains. Aconcerted<br />
intellectualefforttoreframe<strong>the</strong>elementsof<strong>the</strong> CharlottetownAgreementso<br />
329
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
thatitcannotbedismissedasanassemblageofincompatiblecompromisesis<br />
stillachallengetoCanadianscholars. <strong>The</strong>equalpartnershipdiscourseof<strong>the</strong>B<br />
&BCommission, in spite of its incompleteness, merits rediscovery in <strong>the</strong><br />
search for a new coherence.<br />
Notes<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> terms were not used in <strong>the</strong> Preliminary Report. <strong>The</strong>y appear first in <strong>the</strong> General<br />
Introduction, p. xxxiv.<br />
2. <strong>La</strong>costegivesafairaccountof<strong>the</strong>Commission’sdecisionnottopublish<strong>the</strong>finalvolume.<br />
3. For <strong>the</strong> period up to 1989, <strong>the</strong> Selected Bibliography in Behiels 1989 is useful. For 1990-<br />
1992,eachissueof<strong>the</strong>Newsletterof<strong>the</strong>Networkon<strong>the</strong><strong>Constitution</strong>,1991<strong>The</strong>Network,<br />
Ottawa: University of Ottawa, publishes a full listing of publications on <strong>the</strong> constitution.<br />
4. I borrow this phrase from <strong>the</strong> 1950s <strong>and</strong> Iris Murdoch.<br />
Bibliography<br />
Bercowitz, S.D. <strong>and</strong> Logan, R.K. (eds), 1978. Canada’s Third Option. Toronto: Macmillan.<br />
Cairns,AlanC.,1989.“Citizens<strong>and</strong><strong>The</strong>ir<strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong>:Democratizing<strong>the</strong>processofconstitutional<br />
reform”inMichaelD.Behiels(ed.),<strong>The</strong>Meech<strong>La</strong>kePrimer.Ottawa:UniversityofOttawa<br />
Press. (pp 109-124) p. 118.<br />
_____, 1991. “<strong>Constitution</strong>al Change <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Three Equalities” in Watts <strong>and</strong> Brown (eds.),<br />
Options for a New Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.<br />
_____, 1992. <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> versus <strong>Federalism</strong>. Montreal <strong>and</strong> Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University<br />
Press.<br />
Dufour,Christian,1990.ACanadianChallenge/Ledéfiquébécois. Halifax<strong>and</strong><strong>La</strong>ntzville,B.C.:<br />
Oolichan Books <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Institute for Research on Public Policy.<br />
Dunton, Davidson, 1978. “Majority Must Bend to Quebec” (originally alecture at McGill<br />
University entitled “Equal Partnership”) in S.D. Bercowitz <strong>and</strong> R.K.Logan.<br />
Forsey,Eugene,1962.“Canada:TwoNationsorOne?”28CanadianJournalofEconomics<strong>and</strong><br />
Political Science, November.<br />
Frith, Royce, 1978. “<strong>La</strong>nguage Rights <strong>and</strong> Programs” in S.D. Bercowitz <strong>and</strong> Robert K. Logan,<br />
Canada’s Third Option. Toronto: Macmillan.<br />
Guindon,Hubert,1978.“<strong>The</strong>ModernizationofQuebec<strong>and</strong><strong>the</strong>Legitimacyof<strong>the</strong>CanadianState”<br />
in Glenday, Guindon <strong>and</strong> Turowetz, Modernization <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian State. Toronto:<br />
Macmillan.<br />
Kymlicka, Will, 1989. Liberty, Community, <strong>and</strong> Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
_____, 1991. “Liberalism <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Politicization of Ethnicity,” Canadian Journal of <strong>La</strong>w <strong>and</strong><br />
Jurisprudence ,Vol 4/2.<br />
_____, (forthcoming). “Individual <strong>and</strong> Community Rights” in Judith Baker (ed.) Group Rights.<br />
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.<br />
<strong>La</strong>coste, Paul, 1990 (1). “André <strong>La</strong>urendeau et la Commission sur le bilinguisme et le<br />
biculturalisme” in Comeau, Robert <strong>and</strong> Beaudry, Lucille (eds.), André <strong>La</strong>urendeau: un<br />
intellectuel d’ici. Québec: Presses de l’université du Québec .<br />
_____,1990(2).“André<strong>La</strong>urendeauetlaCommissionroyaled’enquêtesurlebilinguismeetle<br />
biculturalisme,” an introduction to <strong>La</strong>urendeau, André, Journal . Montréal: VLB éditeur.<br />
Le Devoir, 24 August 1992. Montreal.<br />
Morin, Jacques-Yvan, 1965. “Vers un nouvel équilibre constitutionnel” in Crépeau, P.-A. <strong>and</strong><br />
Macpherson, C.B. (eds.) <strong>The</strong> Future of Canadian <strong>Federalism</strong>/ l’Avenir du fédéralisme<br />
canadien. Toronto <strong>and</strong> Montreal: University of Toronto Press <strong>and</strong> Les Presses de<br />
l’Université de Montréal.<br />
Porter, John, 1964. <strong>The</strong> Vertical Mosaic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.<br />
RCBB,1965.APreliminaryReportof<strong>the</strong>RoyalCommissiononBilingualism<strong>and</strong>Biculturalism.<br />
Ottawa, Appendix III.<br />
_____,1967.Reportof<strong>the</strong>RoyalCommissiononBilingualism<strong>and</strong>Biculturalism.BookIGeneral<br />
Introduction <strong>and</strong> <strong>The</strong> Official <strong>La</strong>nguages<br />
_____,1968. Book II, Education<br />
_____,1970. Book IV, <strong>The</strong> Cultural Contribution of <strong>the</strong> O<strong>the</strong>r Ethnic Groups.<br />
Ryan, Claude, 1990. “Il asoulevé les vraies questions et réfuté les réponses toutes faites” in<br />
Comeau <strong>and</strong> Beaudry.<br />
Senate, 1988. Debates of <strong>the</strong> Senate, vol. 132, March 20.<br />
Smiley, Donald V., 1967. <strong>The</strong> Canadian Political Nationality. Toronto: Methuen.<br />
_____,1970.<strong>Constitution</strong>alAdaptation<strong>and</strong>Canadian<strong>Federalism</strong>Since1945,Documentsof<strong>the</strong><br />
Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong> Biculturalism, #4. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.<br />
330
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Royal Commission on Bilingualism <strong>and</strong><br />
Biculturalism on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Though <strong>and</strong> Practice<br />
_____, 1987. <strong>The</strong> Federal Condition in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.<br />
Special Joint Committee of <strong>the</strong> Senate <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> House of Commons on <strong>the</strong> 1987 <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Accord,1987(1).MinutesofProceedings<strong>and</strong>Evidence.TestimonyofInuitCommitteeon<br />
National Issues, Métis National Council <strong>and</strong> Native Council of Canada, August 5.<br />
_____,1987(2).Briefof<strong>the</strong>UkrainianCanadianCommitteeto<strong>the</strong>SpecialJointCommittee,No.<br />
7, August 13. (Presented by Thor Broda).<br />
Task Force on Canadian Unity, 1979. AFuture Toge<strong>the</strong>r. Ottawa: Minister of Supply <strong>and</strong><br />
Services Canada. Cited in Smiley 1987: 125.<br />
Taylor, Charles, 1991. “Shared <strong>and</strong> Divergent Values” in Watts, R.L. <strong>and</strong> Brown D. M.(eds).<br />
Options for a New Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.<br />
331
David R. Cameron<br />
Not Spicer <strong>and</strong> Not <strong>the</strong> B & B: Reflections of an<br />
Insider on <strong>the</strong> Workings of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-Robarts<br />
Task Force on Canadian Unity*<br />
Abstract<br />
<strong>The</strong> Task Force on Canadian Unity, contrary to <strong>the</strong> preferences of <strong>the</strong><br />
Government of Canada, acted both as a mid-wife to a process of public<br />
discussion of national unity in <strong>the</strong> late seventies <strong>and</strong> as a source of independent<br />
policy ideas <strong>and</strong> recommendations. In developing its ideas, it drew<br />
syn<strong>the</strong>tically on what it learned from <strong>the</strong> public hearings <strong>and</strong> from its own<br />
research <strong>and</strong> analysis, <strong>and</strong> produced a Final Report which stood as <strong>the</strong> most<br />
coherent federalist alternative to <strong>the</strong> anti-nationalist individualism of Pierre<br />
Elliott Trudeau. Political events subsequent to <strong>the</strong> release of <strong>the</strong> Task Force's<br />
Report reduced its immediate impact, but its concepts of duality <strong>and</strong><br />
regionalism <strong>and</strong> its frank acknowledgment of <strong>the</strong> communitarian foundation<br />
of much of Canadian life have been significant factors in <strong>the</strong> country's<br />
national-unity debate since that time <strong>and</strong> have been reflected in both Meech<br />
<strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord.<br />
Résumé<br />
En dépit des préférences du gouvernement, le Groupe de travail sur l'unité<br />
canadienne a donné naissance à un vaste débat public sur l'unité nationale et à<br />
une manne d'idées et de recomm<strong>and</strong>ations indépendantes en matière<br />
d'orientations. Ses idées se sont développées à partir de ce qu'il a entendu lors<br />
des audiences publiques et dans la foulée de ses propres recherches et<br />
analyses. Son rapport final constituait la solution de rechange fédéraliste la<br />
plus cohérente à l'anti-nationalisme individualiste de Pierre Elliott Trudeau.<br />
<strong>La</strong> conjoncture politique entourant la publication du rapport du Groupe de<br />
travail en a restreint l'influence immédiate, mais ses concepts de dualité et de<br />
régionalisme et sa franche reconnaissance des assises communautaires de la<br />
vie des Canadiens ont depuis lors constitué des aspects importants du débat<br />
sur l'unité nationale; que l'on songe à l'entente du lac Meech ou à l'Accord de<br />
Charlottetown.<br />
A commission is chiefly remembered for its final report. <strong>The</strong> untold story,<br />
normally, is how <strong>the</strong> commission produced <strong>the</strong> thing for which it is<br />
remembered. My focus in <strong>the</strong>se reflections is principally on <strong>the</strong> how, not <strong>the</strong><br />
what—on <strong>the</strong> inner workings of <strong>the</strong> Task Force on Canadian Unity ra<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
<strong>the</strong> analysis <strong>and</strong> policy recommendations contained in <strong>the</strong> final report.<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
A New Kind of Commission? Relations Between <strong>the</strong> Government <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Task Force<br />
<strong>The</strong> Task Force on Canadian Unity was established on 5 July 1977 in <strong>the</strong> wake<br />
of <strong>the</strong> October 1976 election of <strong>the</strong> Parti Québécois.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Commission was set up by Prime Minister Trudeau to allow <strong>the</strong> public to<br />
air its views on national unity <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> government to buy some time. 1 <strong>The</strong><br />
government wanted to proceed cautiously in light of <strong>the</strong> PQ victory, to<br />
reassure <strong>the</strong> Canadian public that it was not on <strong>the</strong> edge of a precipice <strong>and</strong> to<br />
give <strong>the</strong> impression that <strong>the</strong> national-unity issue was being prudently<br />
managed. Although set up under <strong>the</strong> Inquiries Act, it was called a “task force,”<br />
not a commission, presumably to indicate that it was a horse of a different<br />
colour from <strong>the</strong> run-of-<strong>the</strong>-mill commission. I remember John Robarts, who<br />
was keen on <strong>the</strong> expression, saying early on in <strong>the</strong> life of <strong>the</strong> Commission that<br />
“task force” was a word used in World War II to designate a small number of<br />
ships given a limited, very specific mission. At <strong>the</strong> time of this remark, it was<br />
still perhaps possible to believe that <strong>the</strong> Commissioners would restrict<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves to <strong>the</strong> mission <strong>the</strong> government had assigned <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> beginning, <strong>the</strong>re was <strong>the</strong> belief that <strong>the</strong> Task Force would probably not<br />
make a final report in <strong>the</strong> conventional sense. <strong>The</strong> fact that it was initially given<br />
a one-year timetable within which to do its work reflected this view. It would<br />
hold hearings across Canada, allow Canadians to speak <strong>the</strong>ir minds <strong>and</strong> give an<br />
account of what it had heard. <strong>The</strong> medium would be <strong>the</strong> message. It would not<br />
do research, develop policy or offer substantive proposals about <strong>the</strong> means by<br />
which <strong>the</strong> crisis of Confederation might be resolved. <strong>The</strong> Prime Minister had a<br />
clear view of <strong>the</strong> challenge coming from Quebec <strong>and</strong> of <strong>the</strong> national policies<br />
appropriate to addressing it; his government would not welcome <strong>the</strong><br />
articulation of an alternative approach by a federally established commission.<br />
Indeed, <strong>the</strong> Trudeau government's own constitutional proposals—<strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Amendment Bill (Bill C-60)—were released in June 1978 <strong>and</strong><br />
must have been in preparation well before <strong>the</strong> Task Force completed its<br />
hearings in April of that year.<br />
So <strong>the</strong> Pepin-Robarts Task Force—for those who gave it life—was supposed<br />
to be ra<strong>the</strong>r like what <strong>the</strong> Spicer Commission became more than a dozen years<br />
later: a national exercise in public consultation reporting on public opinion but<br />
offering little or nothing in <strong>the</strong> way of policy proposals.<br />
This was not to be. Instead, <strong>the</strong> Task Force produced three publications at <strong>the</strong><br />
end of its life, one of which was a substantial report with an analysis <strong>and</strong> a set of<br />
recommendations far from congenial to <strong>the</strong> Trudeau government. What<br />
happened?<br />
I think one factor was <strong>the</strong> sheer force of tradition: a commission's work<br />
conventionally includes a final report <strong>and</strong> recommendations. How could this<br />
one do o<strong>the</strong>rwise? A second factor was <strong>the</strong> predisposition of <strong>the</strong><br />
Commissioners <strong>and</strong> some of <strong>the</strong> staff. It is difficult to imagine a Gerald<br />
Beaudoin, a Solange Chaput-Roll<strong>and</strong> or—after John Evans’ early<br />
resignation—a Ron Watts on a commission <strong>and</strong> not expect a substantive<br />
report. Jean-Luc Pepin, as co-chair, was a man with vital intellectual <strong>and</strong><br />
public-policy interests who was unlikely to be satisfied with simply reporting,<br />
largely unmediated by analysis, what o<strong>the</strong>r people said. Most of <strong>the</strong> key<br />
Commission staff were recruited from <strong>the</strong> academic, public service <strong>and</strong><br />
professional world <strong>and</strong> assumed that <strong>the</strong> job of <strong>the</strong> Task Force was to produce a<br />
334
Reflections of an Insider on <strong>the</strong> Workings of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-<br />
Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity<br />
substantive report with recommendations. <strong>La</strong>stly, <strong>the</strong> Task Force was held in<br />
low regard by <strong>the</strong> public at <strong>the</strong> beginning of its life <strong>and</strong> confronted a good deal<br />
of scepticism; committing itself to <strong>the</strong> production of a first-class report was<br />
one way of coping with <strong>the</strong>se pressures.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is ano<strong>the</strong>r dimension here worthy of remark. While <strong>the</strong> government, as<br />
we shall see, found ways of making its views of <strong>the</strong> Task Force's approach<br />
quite clear, <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> government of Canada scrupulously<br />
respected <strong>the</strong> tradition of independence in which Canadian royal commissions<br />
have functioned. It established <strong>the</strong> Commission, gave it its m<strong>and</strong>ate, named <strong>the</strong><br />
Commissioners, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n stepped back <strong>and</strong> allowed <strong>the</strong> Task Force to operate<br />
freely as it saw fit. Indeed, Jean-Luc Pepin, <strong>the</strong> full-time co-chair <strong>and</strong> former<br />
Liberal cabinet minister, did not even talk to Prime Minister Trudeau during<br />
<strong>the</strong> life of <strong>the</strong> Commission between 1977 <strong>and</strong> 1979, even to discuss his own<br />
future political career plans.<br />
That <strong>the</strong> government got more than it bargained for from <strong>the</strong> Task Force is not<br />
surprising. When a government launches an enquiry into a large <strong>and</strong> illdefined<br />
field such as national unity, <strong>the</strong> degree to which it can shape <strong>the</strong><br />
commission's work by <strong>the</strong> definition of its m<strong>and</strong>ate is small. Resourceful<br />
minds <strong>and</strong> strong wills can find ample room to manoeuvre within even <strong>the</strong><br />
most cleverly constituted m<strong>and</strong>ate.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> m<strong>and</strong>ate which <strong>the</strong> government assigned to <strong>the</strong> Task Force, no mention<br />
was made of a final report; <strong>the</strong> conventional phrase “to inquire into <strong>and</strong> report<br />
upon” was notably absent. However, <strong>the</strong> injunctions “to contribute ... <strong>the</strong><br />
initiatives <strong>and</strong> views of <strong>the</strong> Commissioners” <strong>and</strong> to “be a source of advice to<br />
<strong>the</strong> government” were more than sufficient foundation to permit <strong>the</strong><br />
Commissioners to do as <strong>the</strong>y wished. As with o<strong>the</strong>r commissions, so with<br />
Pepin-Robarts: <strong>the</strong> personalities of commissioners, <strong>the</strong> unfolding of events<br />
during <strong>the</strong> life of a commission <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> impact on a commission of <strong>the</strong> data,<br />
people <strong>and</strong> organizations with which it comes in contact, all proved to be<br />
potent forces in shaping what it would do <strong>and</strong> how it would do it.<br />
As a kind of declaration of independence, <strong>the</strong> Task Force, at <strong>the</strong> end of its first<br />
full meeting, released a statement declaring that it saw its job as finding a “third<br />
way,” presumably between <strong>the</strong> status quo <strong>and</strong> sovereignty-association:<br />
It is our intention to assemble concepts <strong>and</strong> policies which could<br />
constitute some of <strong>the</strong> elements of a third option for Canada. <strong>The</strong><br />
Members of <strong>the</strong> Task Force do not feel bound by existing legislation<br />
or practices nor are <strong>the</strong>y committed to views of any federal or<br />
provincial political party....[we are] aware that our autonomy is<br />
essential to our credibility <strong>and</strong> usefulness. 2<br />
This was controversial, both because it evinced an intention to move beyond<br />
public consultation <strong>and</strong> into substance <strong>and</strong> because <strong>the</strong> policy direction <strong>and</strong><br />
implicit strategy it blocked out, however tentatively— “a third option”—were<br />
anti<strong>the</strong>tic to <strong>the</strong> direction in which <strong>the</strong> federal government appeared to wish to<br />
move.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re were clear indications that autumn that <strong>the</strong> Privy Council Office was<br />
increasingly worried about <strong>the</strong> Task Force getting out of control, <strong>and</strong> Prime<br />
Minister Trudeau rapped <strong>the</strong> Commission's knuckles in a statement in <strong>the</strong><br />
House of Commons on 19 October 1977 in which he said:<br />
335
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
...I submit respectfully to everybody, including members of my own<br />
party <strong>and</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-Robarts Commission, that this third option<br />
business is a trap we should not fall into.<br />
Given <strong>the</strong> choice between maintaining comfortable relations with <strong>the</strong> federal<br />
government <strong>and</strong> charting its own course, <strong>the</strong> Task Force chose <strong>the</strong> latter.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Culture of a Commission<br />
Commissions are temporary, project-driven organizations. 3<br />
By its very nature, a commission is set up to do a specific job—to fulfill its<br />
m<strong>and</strong>ate, to tackle a project. This project is clearly finite, even if <strong>the</strong> duration of<br />
some commissions suggests o<strong>the</strong>rwise. (<strong>The</strong>B&BCommission, for example,<br />
was brought to a halt, not having completed its work after 7 years of existence.)<br />
Once <strong>the</strong> project is completed, <strong>the</strong> commission disappears; it “goes out of<br />
commission.” <strong>The</strong> Task Force held its first full commission meeting on 31<br />
August 1977 <strong>and</strong> released its final report less than 18 months later, on 25<br />
January 1979. It formally went out of commission a couple of months later.<br />
<strong>The</strong> temporary, project-focussed nature of commission work in large measure<br />
defines <strong>the</strong> unique culture of a commission. People come from somewhere else<br />
to do a temporary job. Some are involved in a particular aspect of <strong>the</strong><br />
commission's work, such as <strong>the</strong> organization of hearings, <strong>and</strong> leave once that<br />
work is done; o<strong>the</strong>rs—<strong>the</strong> commissioners, commission executives <strong>and</strong> support<br />
staff—have tasks that keep <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong>re throughout. That <strong>the</strong>ir tenure at <strong>the</strong><br />
commission is temporary is known from <strong>the</strong> very beginning. Everyone leaves<br />
when <strong>the</strong> commission winds up. As <strong>the</strong> life of <strong>the</strong> commission moves to its<br />
conclusion, commissioners <strong>and</strong> staff increasingly turn <strong>the</strong>ir attention to what<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are going back to or where <strong>the</strong>y are going—or hoping to go—next.<br />
If <strong>the</strong> experience of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-Robarts Task Force is any indication, <strong>the</strong><br />
intensity of <strong>the</strong> work is fierce: long hours, unpredictible schedules;<br />
uncertainties which vein almost every working day; searing conflicts about <strong>the</strong><br />
largest issues <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> smallest slights; moments of giddy exhilaration <strong>and</strong><br />
matchless camaraderie. All of this occurs in a small but bubbling cauldron of<br />
experience, some of it very much in <strong>the</strong> public eye, but much of it confined<br />
within <strong>the</strong> walls of <strong>the</strong> commission itself. Few people who have given<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves up to this curious form of professional existence leave unaffected. 4<br />
Yet, if it is temporary, <strong>and</strong> if it is project driven, a commission is also an<br />
organization. It has a budget <strong>and</strong> a bureaucracy; it establishes positions; <strong>the</strong>re<br />
are financial <strong>and</strong> personnel management problems; records must be kept,<br />
hearings organized, travel schedules <strong>and</strong> meetings arranged. Most, if not all, of<br />
<strong>the</strong>se administrative <strong>and</strong> executive functions a commission holds in common<br />
with o<strong>the</strong>r organizations. <strong>The</strong> chief difference, however, is that a commission<br />
literally starts from scratch; all of it has to be established <strong>and</strong> most of it, it<br />
seems, simultaneously. High policy <strong>and</strong> mundane bureaucratic procedures<br />
both have to be determined at once, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is a sense that everything enjoys<br />
<strong>the</strong> same priority; such matters as <strong>the</strong> recruitment of key staff, <strong>the</strong><br />
establishment of a budget <strong>and</strong> a practical means of paying <strong>the</strong> bills <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
organization of meetings get almost equal consideration as <strong>the</strong> m<strong>and</strong>ate, <strong>the</strong><br />
organization of a public hearings process <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> development of a research<br />
agenda.<br />
336
Reflections of an Insider on <strong>the</strong> Workings of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-<br />
Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity<br />
Having watched <strong>the</strong> chaos flower at <strong>the</strong> Task Force <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n subside as<br />
professional administrative staff were brought in to reduce <strong>the</strong> day-to-day life<br />
of <strong>the</strong> commission to routines <strong>and</strong> more or less normal management practices,<br />
I have to conclude that <strong>the</strong>se difficulties must arise in every commission, that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are not in <strong>the</strong>ir nature politically charged or policy laden, <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong><br />
skills <strong>and</strong> experience necessary to address <strong>the</strong>m are eminently transferrable.<br />
Given that <strong>the</strong>re are royal commissions in operation in Ottawa all <strong>the</strong> time, it<br />
seems to me a good case can be made for <strong>the</strong> establishment of a generic unit<br />
within <strong>the</strong> federal government which would provide <strong>the</strong> basic administrative<br />
<strong>and</strong> financial support necessary to allow <strong>the</strong> commission to get up <strong>and</strong> running<br />
faster <strong>and</strong> to do so with far less angst <strong>and</strong> roiling about in <strong>the</strong> early days than is<br />
currently <strong>the</strong> case. Federal officials from this unit could be seconded to a new<br />
commission to establish <strong>the</strong> necessary support functions <strong>and</strong> to recruit <strong>the</strong> staff<br />
with <strong>the</strong> skills required to carry <strong>the</strong> system on.<br />
One might learn from <strong>the</strong> experience of Parliament which has developed staff<br />
with omnibus administrative skills charged with supporting <strong>the</strong> various<br />
legislative committees which are regularly being set up. It seems to me that <strong>the</strong><br />
provision of neutral, professional infrastructure support would significantly<br />
improve <strong>the</strong> efficient conduct of national public inquiries, particularly in <strong>the</strong><br />
start-up period, <strong>and</strong> could be arranged to do so without compromising <strong>the</strong><br />
necessary independence of <strong>the</strong>se enterprises.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Hearings Process <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Research Function<br />
Some commissions are identified almost as much by <strong>the</strong>ir research <strong>and</strong><br />
research publications as by <strong>the</strong>ir final report <strong>and</strong> its recommendations. <strong>The</strong><br />
Macdonald Commission <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> B&BCommission seem to me to fall into<br />
that category. <strong>The</strong>B&BReport itself contained a substantial array of data <strong>and</strong><br />
research findings, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> research studies provided a significant range of<br />
more specialized analyses. <strong>The</strong> experience of working at <strong>the</strong>B&Bmarked a<br />
whole generation of Anglophone <strong>and</strong> Francophone social scientists with<br />
consequences that were felt over <strong>the</strong> next 15 to 20 years. Likewise, <strong>the</strong> 1900<br />
pages of <strong>the</strong> Macdonald Report are packed with data, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> 72 volumes of<br />
research reports give an extraordinarily comprehensive picture of Canadian<br />
academic thinking about <strong>the</strong> issues that <strong>the</strong> Commission was addressing.<br />
It was quite o<strong>the</strong>rwise with <strong>the</strong> Task Force on Canadian Unity. <strong>The</strong> Task Force,<br />
in many ways, is its final report. Indeed, while <strong>the</strong>re was discussion within <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission about <strong>the</strong> possible release of some of <strong>the</strong> internal studies that had<br />
been carried out, that was never done.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Task Force, in fact, released only three documents in reverse order from<br />
what one would expect:<br />
A Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r: Observations <strong>and</strong> Recommendations, published<br />
on 25 January 1979, <strong>the</strong> report proper, containing <strong>the</strong> Commission's<br />
analysis of <strong>the</strong> plight <strong>the</strong> country found itself in <strong>and</strong> offering a<br />
comprehensive set of proposals for addressing it.<br />
Coming To Terms: <strong>The</strong> Words of <strong>the</strong> Debate, published on 4 February<br />
1979, a glossary of key political terms <strong>and</strong> concepts, produced as a<br />
labour of love by several of <strong>the</strong> Commissioners <strong>and</strong> still used as a<br />
reference work in university classrooms.<br />
337
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
A Time to Speak: <strong>The</strong> Views of <strong>the</strong> Public, published in March 1979, a<br />
report on what <strong>the</strong> people who appeared before <strong>the</strong> Task Force had to<br />
say about <strong>the</strong>ir country <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> issues confronting it.<br />
<strong>The</strong> fact that no working papers or studies were released does not mean that<br />
none was done. In fact, mountains of paper were produced over <strong>the</strong> short life of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Task Force, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> fate of some of this material was not decided until very<br />
near <strong>the</strong> end. In <strong>the</strong> event, its chief function was simply to support <strong>the</strong><br />
Commissioners in <strong>the</strong>ir work.<br />
In this sense, research <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> hearings processes performed parallel functions.<br />
Both provided input to <strong>the</strong> Commissioners which was ultimately syn<strong>the</strong>sized<br />
in <strong>the</strong> final report. <strong>The</strong> research function was not a matter of doing original<br />
work nor, for <strong>the</strong> most part, contracting specialized projects out to scholars <strong>and</strong><br />
experts; it was ra<strong>the</strong>r to collect <strong>and</strong> display relevant information, syn<strong>the</strong>size<br />
<strong>and</strong> represent significant findings <strong>and</strong> expert opinion in key areas, arrange for<br />
direct consultation with key people <strong>and</strong> present coherent policy alternatives to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Commissioners. Executing this m<strong>and</strong>ate brought <strong>the</strong> research staff into<br />
fairly close contact with <strong>the</strong> hearings process.<br />
Indeed, <strong>the</strong> hearings <strong>the</strong>mselves regularly included appearances before <strong>the</strong><br />
Task Force of people with real expertise <strong>and</strong> a substantial record of<br />
achievement in <strong>the</strong> matters being discussed. During <strong>the</strong> eight-month formal<br />
hearings period from September 1977 to April 1978, <strong>the</strong> Task Force held full<br />
sessions in fifteen cities. <strong>The</strong> normal pattern called for public sessions in <strong>the</strong><br />
evenings <strong>and</strong> consultations with groups <strong>and</strong> specialists during <strong>the</strong> day. In<br />
addition, <strong>the</strong>re were numerous private sessions with political figures <strong>and</strong><br />
experts along <strong>the</strong> way.<br />
In addition, <strong>the</strong> Commission engaged <strong>the</strong> services of “<strong>the</strong> three wise men”—<br />
Léon Dion of <strong>La</strong>val, Edward MacWhinney of Simon Fraser <strong>and</strong> John Meisel<br />
of Queen's. <strong>The</strong>y met with <strong>the</strong> Commissioners periodically to offer general<br />
counsel on <strong>the</strong> Task Force's work, to review draft material <strong>and</strong> to reassure <strong>the</strong><br />
Commissioners about <strong>the</strong> validity of <strong>the</strong> information <strong>and</strong> advice <strong>the</strong>y were<br />
receiving from <strong>the</strong> research staff.<br />
During <strong>the</strong> summer of 1978, after <strong>the</strong> public hearings were completed, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
came what amounted to a private hearings process—an intensive round of<br />
consultations with a wide range of specialists designed to advance <strong>and</strong> enrich<br />
<strong>the</strong> thinking of <strong>the</strong> Commission. <strong>The</strong> research staff was intimately involved in<br />
this process which one of <strong>the</strong> academic Commissioners described as “<strong>the</strong> best<br />
seminar on Canada” anywhere.<br />
While it is true that <strong>the</strong> public hearings <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> research enterprise were<br />
distinguishable streams of activity in <strong>the</strong> work of <strong>the</strong> Commission, <strong>and</strong><br />
depended on different sets of staff, <strong>the</strong>re was a good deal of overlap at certain<br />
points, <strong>and</strong> it is undeniable that <strong>the</strong> former helped support <strong>the</strong> latter.<br />
Fasten Your Seatbelts: <strong>The</strong> Preparation of <strong>the</strong> Final Report<br />
Given <strong>the</strong> initial one-year m<strong>and</strong>ate, combined with <strong>the</strong> Commissioners’<br />
decision to prepare a conventional final report, discussion of <strong>the</strong> shape of <strong>the</strong><br />
Task Force analysis <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> nature of its recommendations became a recurrent<br />
issue during <strong>the</strong> winter months of 1977-78. Consideration was given to <strong>the</strong><br />
possibility of producing an interim report, but it was fairly soon recognized<br />
338
Reflections of an Insider on <strong>the</strong> Workings of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-<br />
Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity<br />
that some extension of <strong>the</strong> m<strong>and</strong>ate would be required <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> Task Force<br />
should concentrate its efforts on producing a good final report.<br />
With <strong>the</strong> completion of <strong>the</strong> public hearings in <strong>the</strong> spring of 1978 <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> windup<br />
of <strong>the</strong> specialist consultations that summer, <strong>the</strong> Task Force turned its<br />
attention in earnest to <strong>the</strong> production of its final report.<br />
A great deal of effort was spent during <strong>the</strong> next four months, both attempting to<br />
settle on policy conclusions <strong>and</strong> recommendations <strong>and</strong> physically preparing a<br />
working draft of <strong>the</strong> final report. <strong>The</strong> territory to be covered was so vast <strong>and</strong> illdefined,<br />
it was difficult to give it shape <strong>and</strong> focus.<br />
For a number of <strong>the</strong> Commissioners <strong>and</strong> staff, <strong>the</strong> moment of truth was<br />
approaching. A final decision on recommendations, for example, concerning<br />
national language policy <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> constitutional status of Quebec in<br />
Confederation could not be avoided much longer, <strong>and</strong> it was clear that<br />
conflicting views would have to be worked out. <strong>Constitution</strong>al matters were<br />
<strong>the</strong> rock on which <strong>the</strong>B&BCommission had foundered a decade before, or at<br />
least were left unresolved by <strong>the</strong> Commission when it folded in 1970, to <strong>the</strong><br />
evident satisfaction of <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>n recently arrived Prime Minister, Pierre<br />
Trudeau. Pepin-Robarts Commissioners were acutely aware of what would<br />
<strong>and</strong> would not please Prime Minister Trudeau, now in office for ten years, but<br />
never<strong>the</strong>less were developing a diagnosis <strong>and</strong> approach materially different<br />
from his.<br />
Although some progress was made in <strong>the</strong> autumn of 1978, both on <strong>the</strong><br />
preparation of <strong>the</strong> report <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> recommendations, it did not feel much like<br />
progress at <strong>the</strong> time. <strong>The</strong> research staff produced fat, black, three-ring binders<br />
filled with draft chapters of <strong>the</strong> report which seemed to <strong>the</strong> staff, <strong>and</strong> I am sure<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Commissioners as well, ponderous <strong>and</strong> unwieldly.<br />
An experienced editor, brought in from Toronto expressed something close to<br />
horror at <strong>the</strong> unmanageable bulk of <strong>the</strong> chapter drafts. Ano<strong>the</strong>r writer/editor,<br />
who had had extensive experience in shaping copy for Reader's Digest, was<br />
recruited <strong>and</strong> hacked manfully at <strong>the</strong> accumulation of words, much to <strong>the</strong><br />
consternation of <strong>the</strong>ir writers. Nothing seemed to be working; nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
recommendations nor <strong>the</strong> text seemed to be coming into focus, <strong>and</strong> we were<br />
finding it hard to coherently express <strong>the</strong> integrating principles of regionalism,<br />
duality <strong>and</strong> powersharing that <strong>the</strong> Task Force had fashioned for itself in <strong>the</strong><br />
course of <strong>the</strong> previous twelve months. We were also finding it difficult to settle<br />
on a set of recommendations that adequately reflected those principles.<br />
Our salvation came from outside.<br />
In June, 1978 <strong>the</strong> government of Canada released proposals for constitutional<br />
change in <strong>the</strong> form of draft legislation (Bill C-60). <strong>The</strong> existence of that<br />
document, <strong>and</strong> provincial reaction to it <strong>and</strong> to a federal schedule for 12<br />
constitutional discussions, led <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister to convene a <strong>Constitution</strong>al<br />
Conference for 30 October to 1 November 1978. This was <strong>the</strong> beginning of<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r attempt at comprehensive constitutional reform seven years after <strong>the</strong><br />
aborted Victoria <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of 1971. Discussion at <strong>the</strong> October Conference<br />
appeared to disclose sufficient grounds to establish a ministerial<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Committee to prepare specific proposals for a second First<br />
Ministers' Conference on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>, to be held on 5 to 6 February 1979.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se events led members of <strong>the</strong> Task Force to believe that <strong>the</strong> February<br />
meeting was likely to be of critical importance to <strong>the</strong> country <strong>and</strong> to <strong>the</strong><br />
339
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
resolution of <strong>the</strong> constitutional issue; <strong>the</strong>re was a sense that <strong>the</strong> Task Force, if it<br />
did not speak prior to that event, might very well miss <strong>the</strong> boat <strong>and</strong> its work be<br />
made largely irrelevant.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> event, this was far from true, as some of <strong>the</strong> Task Force members<br />
privately realized. While Prime Minister Trudeau appeared to be willing to<br />
consider proposals that were more generous to <strong>the</strong> provinces than had been <strong>the</strong><br />
case in <strong>the</strong> past, political considerations on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> provincial<br />
participants, given <strong>the</strong> prospect of a federal election in a few weeks or months,<br />
meant that <strong>the</strong> chances of reaching an agreement were slim. In addition, <strong>the</strong><br />
Parti Québécois government of Quebec was committed to sovereigntyassociation—a<br />
non-starter in English-speaking Canada—<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> PQ had yet<br />
to test <strong>the</strong> acceptability of its ideas among its own electorate in a referendum.<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> notion that a significant constitutional agreement might be<br />
possible in February was an extraordinarily helpful “activating fiction” that<br />
galvanized Commissioners <strong>and</strong> staff. At a meeting before Christmas, <strong>the</strong><br />
Commissioners committed <strong>the</strong>mselves to <strong>the</strong> preparation <strong>and</strong> release of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
final report including recommendations prior to <strong>the</strong> Vancouver constitutional<br />
meeting. For this reason, three volumes <strong>the</strong> Task Force produced came out in<br />
reverse order from what might have been expected.<br />
Setting a real deadline, credible to <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>and</strong> authoritative so far as <strong>the</strong><br />
staff were concerned, was probably <strong>the</strong> most critical single decision <strong>the</strong><br />
Commissioners made with respect to <strong>the</strong> final report. All o<strong>the</strong>r matters for<br />
resolution became consequential on that prior commitment.<br />
Recommendations had to be decided; a satisfactory draft of <strong>the</strong> final report,<br />
reflecting <strong>the</strong> philosophy of <strong>the</strong> Commissioners, had to be produced. All of<br />
this—not to mention <strong>the</strong> editing, translation, printing <strong>and</strong> distribution—had to<br />
be completed within a space of seven weeks.<br />
<strong>The</strong> psychological impact on Commissioners <strong>and</strong> staff alike was dramatic; as<br />
one researcher said:<br />
<strong>The</strong> Commissioners have fastened <strong>the</strong>ir seat belts <strong>and</strong> returned <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
chairs to <strong>the</strong> upright position. <strong>The</strong>y're getting ready to l<strong>and</strong>.<br />
At a stroke, <strong>the</strong> Commission members began to focus on essentials, not details.<br />
Setting a deadline helped <strong>the</strong> Task Force unburden itself of <strong>the</strong> unwieldly<br />
drafts of <strong>the</strong> final report produced in autumn, <strong>and</strong> to use <strong>the</strong>m simply as<br />
resource material to be drawn on as needed.<br />
<strong>The</strong> responsibility for preparing a draft of an entirely new version of <strong>the</strong> report<br />
was entrusted to one Commissioner <strong>and</strong> one member of <strong>the</strong> research staff; <strong>the</strong>y<br />
agreed between <strong>the</strong>mselves on <strong>the</strong> general areas each would be responsible for,<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Commission broke for Christmas.<br />
<strong>The</strong> first sentences of what was to become <strong>the</strong> final report were written on<br />
Boxing Day. A Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r: Observations <strong>and</strong> Recommendations, <strong>the</strong><br />
Final Report of <strong>the</strong> Task Force on Canadian Unity, was released in both official<br />
languages one month later. This must surely set a record for <strong>the</strong> rapid<br />
production of a royal-commission report. Recently, one of my colleagues,<br />
currently laboring on ano<strong>the</strong>r royal commission, observed wearily:<br />
340
Reflections of an Insider on <strong>the</strong> Workings of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-<br />
Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity<br />
Oh. commissions....Commissions are a lot like elephants. <strong>The</strong>y’re<br />
big <strong>and</strong> slow moving <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y tend to sit down <strong>and</strong> squash things. <strong>The</strong><br />
only difference is <strong>the</strong>y don't have memories.<br />
It is true that <strong>the</strong> pace set by many commissions has been painfully slow, but<br />
that certainly cannot be said of <strong>the</strong> final days of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-Robarts Task Force,<br />
nor, I think, of its existence in general, given that its active life was less than a<br />
year <strong>and</strong> a half in total.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Commission reconvened at <strong>the</strong> beginning of January to review <strong>and</strong><br />
improve <strong>the</strong> draft, to finalize <strong>the</strong> recommendations <strong>and</strong> to oversee <strong>the</strong><br />
translation. Fortunately, <strong>the</strong> draft that <strong>the</strong> authors had prepared was generally<br />
to <strong>the</strong> liking of <strong>the</strong> Commissioners <strong>and</strong>, by <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>the</strong> pressure of <strong>the</strong> looming<br />
deadline forced a consensus in even <strong>the</strong> most divisive areas in which <strong>the</strong>y<br />
intended to make recommendations.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se areas were many: decentralization, <strong>the</strong> Senate, <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court <strong>and</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r contentious issues. But by far <strong>the</strong> most difficult matter was federal<br />
language policy, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Commissioners—particularly an active core group<br />
from Ontario <strong>and</strong> Quebec—spent hours during <strong>the</strong> days <strong>and</strong> nights of early<br />
January in an ultimately successful struggle to reach agreement on a set of<br />
language-policy recommendations. <strong>The</strong>se were among <strong>the</strong> most controversial<br />
when <strong>the</strong> Report was publicly released.<br />
<strong>The</strong> role of John Robarts was important here. He was nei<strong>the</strong>r troubled by nor<br />
terribly interested in <strong>the</strong> detailed recommendations with which several of <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r Commissioners were wrestling. However, he did care passionately about<br />
one thing: he thought his country was in very serious trouble <strong>and</strong> it needed to<br />
get fixed, <strong>and</strong> quickly. Robarts used to say, when confronted with yet ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
set of arcane policy proposals, that dealing with <strong>the</strong>se national-unity issues<br />
was like “shovelling fog.” He would also say that Canada need to “reach<br />
finality” on <strong>the</strong>se issues, that is to say, to settle <strong>the</strong> matter once <strong>and</strong> for all, get it<br />
over <strong>and</strong> done with, <strong>and</strong> stop talking about it. <strong>The</strong>se views, I think, allowed him<br />
to accept quite “comfortably” (a favourite Robarts' word) what must have<br />
been, for him, a fairly radical set of recommendations. <strong>The</strong>y also explain his<br />
insistence during <strong>the</strong> final discussions that <strong>the</strong> report be unanimous; if <strong>the</strong> Task<br />
Force’s recommendations were to be credible <strong>and</strong> authoritative, <strong>the</strong>re could be<br />
no minority report. And <strong>the</strong>re was none.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Impact of <strong>the</strong> Task Force<br />
<strong>The</strong> Task Force’s Final Report was given to <strong>the</strong> government a couple of days<br />
before its public release, <strong>and</strong> several of <strong>the</strong> Commissioners went to Prime<br />
Minister Trudeau's office to discuss it with him <strong>and</strong> Marc <strong>La</strong>londe. Trudeau<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>La</strong>londe had had very little time to review <strong>the</strong> Report. It came as no<br />
surprise to any of us that nei<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong>m liked it much, but what I found<br />
interesting was <strong>the</strong> way that each, given <strong>the</strong> limited time available, approached<br />
<strong>the</strong> Report.<br />
Marc <strong>La</strong>londe had flipped to <strong>the</strong> back <strong>and</strong> read through <strong>the</strong> recommendations;<br />
he <strong>the</strong>n proceeded to render his judgment of <strong>the</strong> document on that basis.<br />
Trudeau, for his part, had started at <strong>the</strong> beginning of <strong>the</strong> Report <strong>and</strong> read his<br />
way as far as he could into <strong>the</strong> substance of <strong>the</strong> argument; he <strong>the</strong>n discussed<br />
with <strong>the</strong> Commissioners <strong>the</strong>ir substantive approach <strong>and</strong> line of reasoning.<br />
While I thought it a pity—though not surprising—that <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister did<br />
341
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
not care for <strong>the</strong> Report's analysis <strong>and</strong> intellectual framework, it pleased me as a<br />
citizen <strong>and</strong> an academic that <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister of my country had a cast of<br />
mind that drove him to tackle arguments, not just recommendations.<br />
<strong>The</strong> government of Canada received <strong>the</strong> Task Force's Report publicly with<br />
restraint <strong>and</strong> circumspection. When Prime Minister Trudeau tabled it in <strong>the</strong><br />
House he stated carefully that <strong>the</strong> government of Canada “accepts <strong>the</strong> broad<br />
lines of <strong>the</strong> Task Force’s analysis of <strong>the</strong> problem <strong>and</strong> endorses <strong>the</strong> basic<br />
principles which it believes should underlie <strong>the</strong> renewal of <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
federation.” <strong>The</strong> opposition leaders, Joe Clark <strong>and</strong> Ed Broadbent, were more<br />
outspoken in <strong>the</strong>ir support. It was in <strong>the</strong> days which followed that <strong>the</strong> Prime<br />
Minister began to make it clear that <strong>the</strong> government had considerable<br />
reservations about <strong>the</strong> Report. <strong>The</strong>re was much in <strong>the</strong> Report to which he took<br />
exception, not least its positive emphasis on duality <strong>and</strong> regionalism, its<br />
support for some decentralization of social <strong>and</strong> cultural policy (although<br />
combined with some centralization in <strong>the</strong> economic field) <strong>and</strong>, in particular, its<br />
position on federal language policy.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Report was made public just two weeks before <strong>the</strong> Vancouver<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Conference. As such, it became a central topic of conversation<br />
in Vancouver, but its release so close to <strong>the</strong> meeting meant that it did not have a<br />
structural impact on <strong>the</strong> agenda or <strong>the</strong> substantive discussions that took place.<br />
Some interest was expressed in <strong>the</strong> approach of Pepin-Robarts by several<br />
provinces, <strong>and</strong> it appeared that <strong>the</strong> Parti Québécois government of Quebec was<br />
startled by <strong>the</strong> Report's forthright recognition of Quebec's distinct character<br />
<strong>and</strong> its willingness to give that distinctiveness some significant constitutional<br />
expression. Claude Morin, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> Quebec minister responsible for<br />
intergovernmental affairs, was reported to have said, apropos of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-<br />
Robarts approach: “We’re not in <strong>the</strong> same boat, but we're sailing down <strong>the</strong><br />
same river.”<br />
Probably <strong>the</strong> most concrete example of <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>the</strong> Report had in some<br />
quarters is <strong>the</strong> Beige Paper, <strong>the</strong> constitutional document put toge<strong>the</strong>r by <strong>the</strong><br />
Quebec Liberal Party under <strong>the</strong> leadership of Claude Ryan. It drew heavily on<br />
<strong>the</strong> Task Force approach. However, <strong>the</strong> defeat of Ryan <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> re-election of<br />
<strong>the</strong> PQ after <strong>the</strong> referendum meant that that stream of influence was effectively<br />
blocked off.<br />
Despite some internal advice to <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong> Trudeau government dealt<br />
with <strong>the</strong> Pepin-Robarts Report by ignoring it. This strategy was largely<br />
successful in reducing its immediate, practical impact, in part because no<br />
provincial government or governments took Pepin-Robarts up seriously as a<br />
cause célèbre <strong>and</strong> in part because <strong>the</strong> country was embarking on a tumultuous<br />
18 months in its history which saw <strong>the</strong> defeat of <strong>the</strong> Liberals in June 1979, <strong>the</strong><br />
nine-month reign of <strong>the</strong> Clark Conservative Government, <strong>the</strong> re-election of<br />
Trudeau <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Liberal Party in February 1980 <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Quebec referendum in<br />
May 1980.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Clark government, during its brief term of office, showed some interest in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Report, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> work that Arthur Tremblay, appointed to <strong>the</strong> Senate by<br />
Prime Minister Clark, had begun, made use of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-Robarts Report as a<br />
significant policy resource.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Report of <strong>the</strong> Task Force on Canadian Unity came, <strong>the</strong>n, at <strong>the</strong> beginning<br />
of a series of national events that followed fast on <strong>the</strong> heels of one ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>and</strong><br />
which transformed <strong>the</strong> context in which Canadian unity <strong>and</strong> constitutional<br />
342
Reflections of an Insider on <strong>the</strong> Workings of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-<br />
Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity<br />
reform were addressed. With <strong>the</strong> utterly unexpected re-election of a majority<br />
Liberal Government under a rejuvenated Pierre Trudeau followed by <strong>the</strong><br />
defeat of <strong>the</strong> Quebec referendum on sovereignty-association, <strong>the</strong> philosophy<br />
<strong>and</strong> proposals espoused by <strong>the</strong> Task Force were definitively set aside. From<br />
1980 to 1984, <strong>the</strong> Trudeau approach to national unity, constitutional reform<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> management of <strong>the</strong> federation held complete sway.<br />
Eloquent evidence of this reality is to be found in <strong>the</strong> fate of Jean-Luc Pepin,<br />
co-chairman of <strong>the</strong> Task Force, who was re-elected as a Liberal in <strong>the</strong> 18<br />
February 1980 federal election which brought Trudeau back to power. <strong>The</strong><br />
Prime Minister made Pepin Minister of Transport, at that time an active <strong>and</strong><br />
very heavy portfolio which was far removed from <strong>the</strong> referendum <strong>and</strong><br />
constitutional action, <strong>and</strong> he was allowed to have no significant role in <strong>the</strong><br />
federal government's conduct of <strong>the</strong>se matters.<br />
What of <strong>the</strong> Task Force's general influence—its “atmospheric” impact—in <strong>the</strong><br />
fourteen years since it folded its tent? Any response to that question must be<br />
highly speculative. However, I have <strong>the</strong> impression that <strong>the</strong> Pepin-Robarts<br />
Task Force accomplished in substantial measure what it had announced it<br />
intended to do at <strong>the</strong> beginning of its work, namely, to present a third option for<br />
Canada. In <strong>the</strong> event, it offered an approach which was different from both <strong>the</strong><br />
sovereignty-association proposal of <strong>the</strong> Parti Québécois government <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Trudeau view of national unity <strong>and</strong> federalism.<br />
It constituted <strong>the</strong> most coherent, st<strong>and</strong>ing federalist alternative to <strong>the</strong> political<br />
ideas of Pierre Trudeau. His anti-nationalist individualism led him to foster <strong>the</strong><br />
recognition of individually-based language rights <strong>and</strong> to stoutly resist any<br />
exp<strong>and</strong>ed recognition of <strong>the</strong> community-based reality of <strong>the</strong> French fact in<br />
North America. While clearly a believer in federalism, his experience in<br />
government created in him a strong resistance to any streng<strong>the</strong>ning of <strong>the</strong><br />
provinces in Confederation.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Pepin-Robarts Report recognized, accepted <strong>and</strong> sought to accommodate<br />
<strong>the</strong> very forces in Canadian life <strong>and</strong> politics that Trudeau was combatting. It<br />
accepted <strong>and</strong> celebrated diversity, <strong>and</strong> in its development of <strong>the</strong> concepts of<br />
duality <strong>and</strong> regionalism, <strong>the</strong> Task Force fashioned a view of Canada <strong>and</strong><br />
Confederation that comfortably acknowledged <strong>the</strong> communitarian foundation<br />
of much of what was most valuable <strong>and</strong> most strongly cherished in our national<br />
existence. What is more, <strong>the</strong> Report frankly accepted <strong>the</strong> structural role of <strong>the</strong><br />
Province of Quebec as <strong>the</strong> “foyer” of <strong>the</strong> Francophone community in North<br />
America <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provinces in expressing <strong>the</strong> regional loyalties<br />
of Canadians in o<strong>the</strong>r parts of <strong>the</strong> country.<br />
It was, I think, <strong>the</strong> first public body to advance this conception of Canada with<br />
such clarity <strong>and</strong> vigour. <strong>The</strong> Task Force was explicit in acknowledging that,<br />
politically, regions were best understood as provinces <strong>and</strong> that, with respect to<br />
duality, <strong>the</strong> key issue was <strong>the</strong> status of Quebec in Confederation. <strong>The</strong>re is no<br />
doubt that <strong>the</strong> Task Force was correct in designating <strong>the</strong>se as <strong>the</strong> two central<br />
forces in <strong>the</strong> country which required mutual accommodation.<br />
<strong>The</strong> failure to reconcile regionalism—transmuted into <strong>the</strong> principle of <strong>the</strong><br />
equality of <strong>the</strong> provinces—<strong>and</strong> duality—understood as <strong>the</strong> need to recognize<br />
Quebec as a distinct society—has, in <strong>the</strong> fourteen years since <strong>the</strong> Task Force<br />
published its Report, exposed <strong>the</strong> country to greater risk than any o<strong>the</strong>r single<br />
issue in our national life.<br />
343
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Conclusion<br />
<strong>The</strong> Task Force’s conception of Canada; its frank acceptance of <strong>the</strong> central<br />
principles of duality <strong>and</strong> regionalism <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> determination to knit <strong>the</strong>m more<br />
creatively into <strong>the</strong> fabric of our national life, ra<strong>the</strong>r than to deny <strong>the</strong>m; <strong>the</strong><br />
recognition of Quebec as a distinct society; <strong>the</strong> willingness to tackle <strong>the</strong><br />
assignment of power between <strong>the</strong> two orders of government <strong>and</strong> to accept a<br />
degree of decentralization—all of <strong>the</strong>se bespeak an approach materially<br />
different from that which dominated our national life until 1984. <strong>The</strong> pressure<br />
to give <strong>the</strong>m some degree of constitutional accommodation, however, appears<br />
not to have diminished with time, although we have not so far been successful<br />
in addressing this matter, nor have we succeeded in giving constitutional<br />
expression to <strong>the</strong> aspirations of Canada's aboriginal peoples.<br />
Both Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord attempted to establish greater<br />
constitutional space for <strong>the</strong> communitarian realities of Canadian life; in this<br />
<strong>the</strong>y were at one with <strong>the</strong> central direction of <strong>the</strong> Pepin-Robarts Report. With<br />
<strong>the</strong> establishment of <strong>the</strong> constitutional <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms in<br />
1982, we have given powerful expression to <strong>the</strong> voice of individualism to<br />
which Pierre Trudeau was so strongly committed <strong>and</strong> which unquestionably<br />
forms part of <strong>the</strong> very foundation of Canadian life. This is not <strong>the</strong> place for a<br />
review of <strong>the</strong> unhappy fortunes of Meech <strong>and</strong> Charlottetown, but it does seem<br />
to me that <strong>the</strong>re is ano<strong>the</strong>r voice—as thoroughly Canadian as that to which <strong>the</strong><br />
1982 <strong>Constitution</strong> gives expression—which is still calling for recognition.<br />
Notes<br />
* I am indebted to Ralph Heintzman, Ken McRoberts, Jean-Luc Pepin <strong>and</strong> Ron Watts who<br />
commented on an earlier draft of this paper.<br />
1. See Jean-Luc Pepin's comments on this subject in his delightful appreciation of John<br />
Robarts, given as <strong>the</strong> closing address of York University's May 1984 inaugural ceremonies<br />
for <strong>the</strong> establishment of <strong>the</strong> Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, p. 111.<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> Role of <strong>the</strong> Task Force, 1 September 1977. Reproduced in <strong>the</strong> Task Force's final report, A<br />
Future Toge<strong>the</strong>r: Observations <strong>and</strong> Recommendations, pp. 139-43.<br />
3. Alan Cairns has spoken of this commission culture in ‘Reflections on Commission<br />
Research’, Commissions of Inquiry, ed. Paul Pross et al. (Toronto: Carswell, 1990), pp.91-3.<br />
4. Alan Cairns speaks of <strong>the</strong> atmosphere of <strong>the</strong> Macdonald Commission in ‘Reflection’, p. 93.<br />
344
Allan Tupper<br />
English-Canadian Scholars <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
Accord *<br />
Michael D. Behiels (ed.). <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Primer : Conflicting Views of <strong>the</strong><br />
1987 <strong>Constitution</strong>al Accord. Ottawa : <strong>The</strong> University of Ottawa Press,<br />
1987.<br />
Alan C. Cairns. Disruptions : <strong>Constitution</strong>al Struggles, from <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> to<br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke, edited by Douglas E. Williams. Toronto : McClell<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
Stewart, 1991.<br />
Roger Gibbins (ed.) with Howard Palmer, Brian Rusted <strong>and</strong> David Taras.<br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Canada : Perspectives from <strong>the</strong> West. Edmonton :<br />
Academic Printing <strong>and</strong> Publishing, 1988.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord. Canadian Public Policy. Supplement (1988) XIV.<br />
Patrick J. Monahan. Meech <strong>La</strong>ke : <strong>The</strong> Inside Story. Toronto <strong>and</strong> Buffalo :<br />
University of Toronto Press, 1991.<br />
David E. Smith, Peter MacKinnon <strong>and</strong> John C. Courtney (eds.). After Meech<br />
<strong>La</strong>ke : Lessons for <strong>the</strong> Future. Saskatoon : Fifth House Publishers, 1991.<br />
K.E. Swinton <strong>and</strong> C.J. Rogerson (eds.). Competing <strong>Constitution</strong>al Visions :<br />
<strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord. Agincourt, Ontario : <strong>The</strong> Carswell Co. Ltd.,<br />
1988.<br />
This essay critically evaluates <strong>the</strong> English-language literature on <strong>the</strong> Meech<br />
<strong>La</strong>ke Accord. Several caveats are necessary. First, <strong>the</strong> literature’s boundaries<br />
are imprecise. Scholarship abounds in journal articles <strong>and</strong> books. Such works<br />
are enriched by an array of commissioned works, briefs to governments <strong>and</strong><br />
transcripts of public hearings to cite just a few sources. Second, <strong>the</strong> formal<br />
literature is itself diverse. Several important volumes were written soon after<br />
<strong>the</strong> Accord’s birth while o<strong>the</strong>rs are post mortems. Some contributions are<br />
designed to influence events <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs are motivated by <strong>the</strong> conventional<br />
scholarly goals of explanation <strong>and</strong> education. Third, as a political scientist, I<br />
will stress, but not restrict myself to, my discipline’s extensive contributions.<br />
Finally, I appreciate <strong>the</strong> varying needs of my diverse audience. My strategy is<br />
<strong>the</strong> bold one of trying to say things that will interest most of my readers.<br />
In this essay, I say a little about many different ideas with <strong>the</strong> full<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing that I am plumbing a substantial literature, that <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
exceptions to my generalizations <strong>and</strong> that several arguments require<br />
elaboration. My conclusions are critical. Social scientists are active<br />
participants in Canadian constitutional life. We counsel governments <strong>and</strong><br />
interest groups, actively express our views about proposed changes <strong>and</strong><br />
passionately advocate reforms. But social scientists have remained close to <strong>the</strong><br />
policy makers’ agenda, have failed to provide new prisms through which to<br />
interpret <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> <strong>and</strong> have undertaken little research which links<br />
constitutional politics with o<strong>the</strong>r important Canadian issues. I also believe that<br />
International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes<br />
7-8, Spring-Fall/Printemps-automne 1993
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
Canadian political scientists are too generous in <strong>the</strong>ir public assessments of<br />
each o<strong>the</strong>rs’ work to <strong>the</strong> detriment of its quality. Political scientists are<br />
consistently dem<strong>and</strong>ing, often intemperate, when evaluating <strong>the</strong> constitutional<br />
performance of public officials.<br />
My essay comprises three sections. First, I highlight <strong>the</strong> English-Canadian<br />
literature’s strengths <strong>and</strong> weaknesses. I <strong>the</strong>n examine <strong>the</strong> contributions of Alan<br />
C. Cairns <strong>and</strong> Patrick J. Monahan. In distinguished essays, Cairns fashions a<br />
powerful, yet incomplete, picture of our recent constitutional life. Monahan’s<br />
book, Meech <strong>La</strong>ke : <strong>The</strong> Inside Story, presents an iconoclastic, but apologetic,<br />
assessment of Meech <strong>La</strong>ke. I conclude with some thoughts about scholars’<br />
roles in constitutional controversies.<br />
<strong>The</strong>mes, Strengths <strong>and</strong> Weaknesses<br />
<strong>The</strong> literature is competent <strong>and</strong> intelligent. It is sometimes creative <strong>and</strong><br />
occasionally rouses such powerful emotions as anger, despair <strong>and</strong> genuine<br />
concern about an unsettled national future. Canadian scholars adeptly capture,<br />
describe <strong>and</strong> analyze <strong>the</strong> visions of Canada that Meech <strong>La</strong>ke ei<strong>the</strong>r reflected or<br />
ignored. In this vein, <strong>the</strong> Accord was criticized by many scholars as an<br />
imprecise, irrelevant or wrong characterization of <strong>the</strong> contemporary Canadian<br />
condition (Gibbins 1988 ; Whyte 1988). For critics, Meech’s agenda was too<br />
rooted in <strong>the</strong> notion that Canadian politics still revolved around questions of<br />
Quebec’s position, federal-provincial relations <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> status of two founding<br />
peoples. How could constitution makers ignore <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>and</strong> aspirations of<br />
aboriginals, women <strong>and</strong> Canadians whose ancestry was nei<strong>the</strong>r British nor<br />
French? Meech’s advocates, both governmental <strong>and</strong> academic, reacted<br />
defensively to such criticism. <strong>The</strong>y often admitted <strong>the</strong> critique’s validity but<br />
argued that o<strong>the</strong>r constitutional questions could be better tackled after<br />
Quebec’s status had been settled (Simeon 1988). Scholars also contributed<br />
substantially to <strong>the</strong> often passionate debate about <strong>the</strong> possible impact of <strong>the</strong><br />
distinct society clause on <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms. Several careful<br />
essays plumb this complex topic (MacKay 1988; Smith 1988).<br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke’s impact on <strong>the</strong> balance of power within federalism was widely<br />
discussed, a hardly surprising fact given <strong>the</strong> continuing importance of federal<br />
issues for governments, citizens <strong>and</strong> political scientists. Some hyperbole was<br />
employed, notably by Pierre Trudeau, by those who worried that Meech would<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r restrain Ottawa’s capacity to act (Trudeau 1988). On balance, scholars<br />
concluded that Meech was “decentralizing” through its provisions on Senate<br />
reform, appointments to <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court, immigration policy <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
spending power (Cairns 1991 : 148-61 ; Johnson 1988). <strong>The</strong> literature<br />
captures <strong>the</strong> “provincializing” thrust of a federal constitutional strategy based<br />
on offering to all provinces that which was necessary to accommodate Quebec.<br />
Scholars dispatched <strong>the</strong> myth of Meech <strong>La</strong>ke as a “Quebec round” <strong>and</strong><br />
captured its reality as a “provincial round.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> literature highlights Canadians’ serious complaints about <strong>the</strong> democratic<br />
quality of <strong>the</strong> processes employed to formulate, to conclude <strong>and</strong> to legitimate<br />
<strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord. “Executive federalism” is almost universally decried<br />
as an unacceptable forum for <strong>the</strong> development of major constitutional reforms,<br />
although critics attacked it on different grounds (Cairns 1992 : 102-8). An<br />
excess of secrecy, a failure to provide clear arguments in support of <strong>the</strong> Accord<br />
<strong>and</strong> efforts to limit public debate are among <strong>the</strong> offending features. Ottawa’s<br />
particular insistence that <strong>the</strong> Accord could be discussed, but not changed, was<br />
348
English-Canadian Scholars <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord<br />
seen as a singular affront to a democratic people. Scholars noted how some<br />
Canadians also questioned <strong>the</strong> representativeness of political elites <strong>and</strong><br />
challenged <strong>the</strong>ir capacity to speak for <strong>the</strong> country. <strong>The</strong> unflattering description<br />
of <strong>the</strong> First Ministers as “eleven, able bodied white males” was incessantly<br />
echoed.<br />
Critical assessments of <strong>the</strong> process are numerous <strong>and</strong> convincing but not<br />
hegemonic. Scattered through <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke literature <strong>and</strong> centrepiece in<br />
Patrick J. Monahan’s book are defences of, <strong>and</strong> explanations for, <strong>the</strong> processes<br />
<strong>and</strong> strategies employed (Simeon 1989 : 128). Meech’s supporters argued that<br />
critics of <strong>the</strong> process employed procedural arguments as smoke screens to<br />
cover opposition to <strong>the</strong> Accord’s content. While self-interested, this point<br />
raises broad issues about <strong>the</strong> interplay between democratic procedures <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
content of major constitutional reforms. Are Meech’s defenders correct when<br />
<strong>the</strong>y assert that procedural arguments, while important, cannot be allowed to<br />
trump substantive ones? Tradeoffs between proper procedure <strong>and</strong> desirable<br />
substance are not troubling for ardent supporters or passionate critics. <strong>The</strong>y are<br />
probably deeply worrisome for Canadians who are receptive to <strong>the</strong> content of<br />
proposed changes but appalled by <strong>the</strong> processes employed.<br />
A virtue of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke literature, one perhaps so obvious that it is<br />
forgotten, is that it reveals <strong>the</strong> range of opinions <strong>and</strong> passions about <strong>the</strong> Accord<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> principal arguments in its defence <strong>and</strong> opposition. Its record of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
views <strong>and</strong> emotions will become more important as time passes <strong>and</strong> as our<br />
memories fade <strong>and</strong> become more selective. <strong>The</strong> reader interested in<br />
recapturing <strong>the</strong> arguments must delve into <strong>the</strong> literature as no author provides a<br />
panorama. <strong>The</strong> edited volumes are particularly helpful in this task especially<br />
Michael Behiels’s tome which collects <strong>the</strong> positions of some interest groups,<br />
several important statements by public officials <strong>and</strong> scholars’ views (Behiels<br />
1989).<br />
Alan Cairns has noted some substantial omissions in Canadian constitutional<br />
scholarship including its failure to think dispassionately about “Canada<br />
without Quebec” or <strong>the</strong> dynamics of aboriginal self-government (Cairns 1991:<br />
207-14). Many o<strong>the</strong>r important issues are ignored or dealt with<br />
unsatisfactorily. Ra<strong>the</strong>r ironically given <strong>the</strong> debate about <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown<br />
Accord, Senate reform is not prominently discussed in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
literature (Meekison 1988). Those concerned with <strong>the</strong> underlying philosophy,<br />
logic <strong>and</strong> effectiveness of alternative reforms must look elsewhere.<br />
<strong>The</strong> constitutional politics of Canada’s provinces <strong>and</strong> territories are not probed<br />
exhaustively. 1 Observers are content to view provincial government<br />
behaviours as a function of such general forces as dominant personalities <strong>and</strong><br />
partisan calculations, perennial provincial interests as shaped by <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
economic bases <strong>and</strong> social structures <strong>and</strong> Ottawa’s strategy of making a<br />
“Quebec round” a de facto “provincial round.” We get little sense of <strong>the</strong> range<br />
of intraprovincial opinions, <strong>the</strong> precise constraints imposed upon provincial<br />
leaders or <strong>the</strong> genesis of such provincial ideologies as “equality of <strong>the</strong><br />
provinces.” <strong>The</strong> territorial governments are ei<strong>the</strong>r ignored or mentioned in<br />
passing as irate byst<strong>and</strong>ers to a constitutional renewal whose content <strong>and</strong><br />
politics <strong>the</strong>y opposed. <strong>The</strong> English-Canadian literature on Meech <strong>La</strong>ke says<br />
little about Quebec’s internal politics, a topic which if better explained might<br />
permit non-Quebecers to appreciate <strong>the</strong> province’s complexity <strong>and</strong> hence <strong>the</strong><br />
broad contours of its constitutional positions. Despite <strong>the</strong> perennial <strong>and</strong><br />
continuing centrality of governments in Canadian constitutional politics <strong>and</strong><br />
349
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
scholarship, <strong>the</strong> literature provides few convincing <strong>the</strong>oretical <strong>and</strong> empirical<br />
accounts of <strong>the</strong>ir behaviour. In light of <strong>the</strong>se flaws, a careful inventory of <strong>the</strong><br />
literature’s assertions about governments’ behaviour, a critical assessment of<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir validity <strong>and</strong> a clear research agenda would be valuable contributions to<br />
future scholarship.<br />
Canadian scholars seldom discuss <strong>the</strong> impact of constitutional reform on <strong>the</strong><br />
substance of public policy, a noteworthy exception being Keith Banting’s<br />
assessment of Meech’s implications for <strong>the</strong> welfare state (Banting 1988).<br />
Meech’s alterations to <strong>the</strong> constitutional basis of immigration policy, a<br />
politically contentious topic, was, except for a single substantive article,<br />
ignored or mentioned merely as <strong>the</strong> constitutional entrenchment of <strong>the</strong><br />
political <strong>and</strong> administrative status quo (Kruhlak 1988). Meech’s provision for<br />
annual First Ministers’ conferences on <strong>the</strong> economy—a proposal with<br />
obvious, albeit indirect, policy consequences —was also given short shrift.<br />
<strong>The</strong> failure to link constitutional change with <strong>the</strong> activities of governments<br />
reflects Canadian political science’s failure to embrace policy studies as an<br />
integral part of its undertakings. This disciplinary weakness has direct<br />
consequences for constitutional studies by removing policy effectiveness as an<br />
important criterion for <strong>the</strong> evaluation of democratic constitutions. When <strong>the</strong><br />
policy consequences of constitutional reform are ignored or downplayed,<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r more accessible yardsticks, like <strong>the</strong> impact on <strong>the</strong> federal balance of<br />
power, assume unwarranted prominence.<br />
As a major contribution, <strong>the</strong> literature highlights <strong>the</strong> advent <strong>and</strong> proliferation<br />
of non governmental constitutional actors. In particular, Alan Cairns has<br />
documented <strong>the</strong> roles of aboriginal peoples <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir organizations, women’s<br />
groups <strong>and</strong> spokespersons for Canada’s visible minorities (Cairns 1991).<br />
Much more work is required before we underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir constitutional views<br />
<strong>and</strong> roles. In this vein, we might consider studying <strong>the</strong> emergent nongovernmental<br />
forces as interest groups per se. Such a perspective<br />
acknowledges <strong>the</strong> elemental point that <strong>the</strong> organizations in question perform<br />
many roles besides <strong>the</strong>ir explicitly political, let alone constitutional, ones.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y have personalities, internal dynamics <strong>and</strong> little understood histories that<br />
shape <strong>the</strong>ir constitutional personae but also reflect <strong>the</strong>ir continuing<br />
performance of o<strong>the</strong>r important undertakings. <strong>The</strong>ir policy making, <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
funding, <strong>the</strong>ir links with governments <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir decisions about constitutional<br />
strategy all require investigation. Political scientists can undertake such<br />
studies armed with a set of propositions about constitutional behaviour <strong>and</strong> a<br />
substantial literature on interest groups. <strong>The</strong> range of non-governmental<br />
constitutional actors must be exp<strong>and</strong>ed to include research organizations like<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canada West Foundation, trade unions, business organizations <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
diverse groups that arise during <strong>the</strong> constitutional deliberations <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n fade<br />
from prominence. <strong>The</strong>ir roles, <strong>the</strong>ir strategies <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir influence must be<br />
probed if we are to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> “new politics” of constitutional reform.<br />
Such inquiries might bring new life to constitutional studies by injecting <strong>the</strong><br />
views of scholars who have abstained from participation <strong>and</strong> by providing<br />
dispassionate analysis of <strong>the</strong> roles of non-governmental actors. A fuller grasp<br />
of <strong>the</strong> patterns of influence at work might also challenge <strong>the</strong> literature’s still<br />
strong assumption that constitution making is an area of considerable<br />
governmental autonomy from societal pressures.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke literature often notes <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> mass media on<br />
constitutional events. Yet only David Taras, his debaters <strong>and</strong> a few o<strong>the</strong>rs deal<br />
explicitly with <strong>the</strong> topic (Alboim 1988; Meisel 1991; Raboy 1991; Taras 1988<br />
350
English-Canadian Scholars <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1991). Taras employs modern communications <strong>the</strong>ories to argue that<br />
television, while influential, is a poor medium for serious constitutional<br />
analysis. While media are assumed to be influential, <strong>the</strong>ir role will not become<br />
central in Canadian constitutional studies. Few social scientists, let alone<br />
constitutional lawyers, are familiar with <strong>the</strong> complex literature that must<br />
underpin a serious discussion of media influence.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke literature is dominated by <strong>the</strong> contributions of law <strong>and</strong><br />
political science. O<strong>the</strong>r disciplines, especially economics, anthropology,<br />
philosophy <strong>and</strong> sociology, are little represented. Nor has much genuinely<br />
interdisciplinary work emerged, although political scientists <strong>and</strong> lawyers often<br />
share insights. Whe<strong>the</strong>r a growing fusion between <strong>the</strong>se two disciplines is<br />
desirable is an open question in both fields.<br />
Economists’ abstinence from constitutional debates is regrettable. 2 <strong>The</strong>ir<br />
greater engagement would probably lessen <strong>the</strong> concern with democratic<br />
processes <strong>and</strong> heighten concern with policy effectiveness as a criterion for<br />
assessing constitutional change. Philosophers are not regular contributors to<br />
<strong>the</strong> detriment of <strong>the</strong> literature <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> debates. 3 Few thinkers coherently probe<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> through <strong>the</strong> lens of classical or modern political thought. As<br />
noted earlier, a strong suit of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke literature is its ability to capture<br />
<strong>the</strong> visions of Canada that underpin public debate. But, revealingly, <strong>the</strong><br />
scholarship says little systematically or <strong>the</strong>oretically about visions of Canada<br />
as a political democracy. A fuller philosophical engagement will not magically<br />
guarantee a more satisfying constitutional life <strong>and</strong> scholarship. It might result<br />
in a deeper attention to <strong>the</strong> principles that should guide democratic<br />
constitutional reform, in a heavier emphasis on criteria for judging proposed<br />
changes <strong>and</strong> in a richer assessment of such questions as <strong>the</strong> tensions between<br />
individual <strong>and</strong> collective rights. A stronger philosophical str<strong>and</strong>, by posing<br />
questions differently, might also shift debate away from <strong>the</strong> agenda as defined<br />
by <strong>the</strong> protagonists.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Canadian left is a byst<strong>and</strong>er in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke debates <strong>and</strong> its attendant<br />
scholarship, although this assertion raises complex questions of definition <strong>and</strong><br />
measurement of influence. <strong>The</strong> social democratic left has generally defended a<br />
strong federal government <strong>and</strong> championed constitutionally recognized social<br />
<strong>and</strong> economic rights. But <strong>the</strong>se views are nei<strong>the</strong>r distinctively social<br />
democratic nor perceived to be such. <strong>The</strong>y are articulated by o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
constitutional actors who do not necessarily define <strong>the</strong>mselves as part of <strong>the</strong><br />
left, some women’s groups for example, <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r partisans, some federal<br />
Liberals for example. <strong>The</strong> federal New Democratic Party’s support of <strong>the</strong><br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Charlottetown Accords mutes its impact on constitutional<br />
events as does <strong>the</strong> left’s continuing suspicion of constitutional debates as mere<br />
distractions in <strong>the</strong> face of a dreary economic l<strong>and</strong>scape. In <strong>the</strong> event, Meech<br />
<strong>La</strong>ke was seldom probed from <strong>the</strong> perspectives of class relations or <strong>the</strong>ories of<br />
political power. This neglect is unfortunate as a constitutional reordering of<br />
immigration power <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> federal spending authority within <strong>the</strong> context of a<br />
“provincializing” credo are important topics for those outside <strong>the</strong> ideological<br />
mainstream. <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke debate was conducted within <strong>the</strong> grasp of<br />
implicit <strong>and</strong> unchallenged assumptions about <strong>the</strong> character <strong>and</strong> power<br />
structure of Canadian society.<br />
<strong>The</strong> dominance of political science <strong>and</strong> law, <strong>the</strong> neglect of certain topics <strong>and</strong><br />
ideological homogeneity are easily demonstrated. Ano<strong>the</strong>r essential<br />
characteristic of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke literature is more elusive. That is, <strong>the</strong><br />
351
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
literature is better characterized as sophisticated public affairs analysis ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than scholarly research as conventionally understood. It rests on commentaries<br />
about, <strong>and</strong> evaluations of, governments’ constitutional proposals. Such are<br />
principally derived from authors’ general knowledge of Canadian government<br />
<strong>and</strong> society <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir strong views about our national future. <strong>The</strong>ir scholarship<br />
is not rooted in <strong>the</strong> definition of precise research problems or <strong>the</strong> articulation<br />
<strong>and</strong> implementation of research designs. To <strong>the</strong> degree that controversy<br />
occurs, it concerns <strong>the</strong> conclusions drawn <strong>and</strong>/or <strong>the</strong> prescriptions offered.<br />
Support for <strong>the</strong>se observations is best drawn from <strong>the</strong> remarkable absence in<br />
<strong>the</strong> scholarship of controversy about how <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong> should be studied<br />
with emphasis on questions of evidence, assumptions <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> suitability of<br />
dominant questions. Such debates, even if too sporadic or tame for some of our<br />
tastes, are found in most mature areas of scholarship where dominant<br />
methodologies, topics <strong>and</strong> conclusions are invariably challenged. In <strong>the</strong><br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke debate, English-Canadian scholars sparred with each o<strong>the</strong>r as<br />
committed citizens.<br />
Meech <strong>La</strong>ke : Some General Interpretations<br />
A highlight of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke literature is <strong>the</strong> wide-ranging scholarship of<br />
Alan C. Cairns who coherently interprets <strong>the</strong> constitutional experience. His<br />
rich scholarship cannot be easily or satisfactorily summarized. It must be read.<br />
He captures a new Canadian constitutional culture, one characterized by <strong>the</strong><br />
mobilization of many non-governmental actors who see formal constitutional<br />
change as a principal arena for <strong>the</strong> pursuit of <strong>the</strong>ir political visions. Inspired by<br />
<strong>the</strong> powerful impact of <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms on Canadian<br />
society, Cairns demonstrates <strong>the</strong> treacherous course of a constitutional order<br />
now defined by two, often conflicting, agendas. During Meech <strong>La</strong>ke,<br />
governments stressed a traditional agenda which emphasized federalprovincial<br />
questions <strong>and</strong> Quebec’s position in Canada. New actors, <strong>the</strong> “rights<br />
bearers,” were driven by a concern with individual <strong>and</strong> group rights. Through<br />
this prism, Cairns explains <strong>the</strong> debates about <strong>the</strong> process, about <strong>the</strong> interplay<br />
between <strong>the</strong> distinct society clause <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> <strong>and</strong> about <strong>the</strong> Accord’s<br />
failure.<br />
Cairns’ work should be acknowledged as excellent but not worshipped. His<br />
provocative portrait is incomplete. As perhaps driven by his methodological<br />
focus on <strong>the</strong> public statements of constitutional actors, he sees <strong>the</strong> modern<br />
constitutional order as shaped by a multiplicity of competing elites. He pays<br />
little explicit attention to <strong>the</strong> broader patterns of public opinion that shape,<br />
reflect <strong>and</strong> restrain elite opinions in little understood ways. Moreover, Cairns<br />
generally sees constitutional affairs as operating in isolation from o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
pressing political matters. He has not yet linked constitutional controversies<br />
with debates about <strong>the</strong> changing economic role of <strong>the</strong> state. His work could<br />
profitably be extended to employ <strong>the</strong> Canadian case as a springboard for<br />
thinking about <strong>the</strong> essence of constitutional orders in modern democracies.<br />
Patrick J. Monahan’s Meech <strong>La</strong>ke : <strong>The</strong> Inside Story is an ambitious book. It is<br />
literate, often provocative <strong>and</strong> sometimes stimulating. It is also incomplete,<br />
imprecise <strong>and</strong> confusing in important aspects. <strong>The</strong> book’s subtitle is<br />
misleading for several reasons. First, Monahan explicitly criticizes accounts<br />
that stress personalities; he writes as an insider but also as an intellectual driven<br />
by a desire to rise above <strong>the</strong> everyday clash of political emotion <strong>and</strong><br />
personalities. Seen in this light, Andrew Cohen’s accessible <strong>and</strong> intelligent<br />
352
English-Canadian Scholars <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord<br />
account of Meech’s politics, as based on interviews with key actors, is<br />
recommended for insight into <strong>the</strong> personalities <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> bargaining (Cohen<br />
1990). Second, Monahan says little about <strong>the</strong> anxieties <strong>and</strong> role conflicts that<br />
might befall a legal scholar <strong>and</strong> professor—an “outsider” in one sense—who<br />
temporarily occupies a senior advisory position to a key actor, in this case <strong>the</strong><br />
Premier of Ontario. <strong>The</strong> neglect of this aspect of “insider” status is unfortunate<br />
as academics, who are thought to be influential in such roles, seldom write<br />
about <strong>the</strong>ir experiences. Third, Monahan’s core arguments—about <strong>the</strong><br />
process, about <strong>the</strong> Accord’s symbolism <strong>and</strong> about leaders as prisoners of past<br />
agreements—could have been constructed by a non-participant. <strong>The</strong>ir<br />
articulation does not require “insider” status.<br />
Monahan wants to destroy <strong>the</strong> idea that Meech <strong>La</strong>ke was merely a failure of<br />
Canadian political leadership, a “total bungle” as Pierre Trudeau called it<br />
(Monahan 1991 : 8-9). This argument is surely a straw man as no serious or<br />
influential academic, political or journalistic observers subscribed to it. 4 In his<br />
zeal to undercut <strong>the</strong> “total bungle” <strong>the</strong>sis, Monahan fashions a deterministic<br />
counter <strong>the</strong>sis—that Meech’s architects were prisoners of <strong>the</strong> 1982<br />
constitutional settlement. Taken to its extreme, this line of reasoning is an<br />
obstacle to, <strong>and</strong> conservative substitute for, serious constitutional analysis.<br />
Finally, Monahan does not transcend <strong>the</strong> personality-centered accounts he<br />
claims to abhor. <strong>The</strong> dissenting Premiers of Newfoundl<strong>and</strong>, New Brunswick<br />
<strong>and</strong> Manitoba—Clyde Wells, Frank Mckenna <strong>and</strong> Gary Filmon<br />
respectively— are consistently criticized while <strong>the</strong> errors <strong>and</strong> sins of <strong>the</strong> Prime<br />
Minister <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> “on side” Premiers are ignored or downplayed. Wells, for<br />
example, is vilified as an opponent of democracy for failing to bring a Meech<br />
resolution before <strong>the</strong> Newfoundl<strong>and</strong> legislature. Prime Minister Mulroney’s<br />
abdication of his responsibility to educate Canadians about Meech <strong>La</strong>ke is<br />
satisfactory to Monahan because <strong>the</strong> agreement raised conflicting<br />
expectations in different parts of <strong>the</strong> country <strong>and</strong> was thus difficult to<br />
communicate. An elemental feature of drama—<strong>the</strong> construction of a story<br />
through <strong>the</strong> creation of heroes <strong>and</strong> villains—is central to Monahan’s analysis.<br />
Contrary to many interpretations, Monahan portrays <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord<br />
as a substantial intergovernmental compromise in which all <strong>the</strong> players,<br />
including Quebec, gave ground. Ottawa capitulated to no one—<strong>the</strong> federal<br />
government was not <strong>the</strong> provinces’ “head waiter.” To this end, Monahan<br />
provides an excellent syn<strong>the</strong>sis <strong>and</strong> evaluation of <strong>the</strong> complex<br />
intergovernmental constitutional negotiations between 1982 <strong>and</strong> 1987. But his<br />
analysis is more compelling <strong>and</strong> valuable than <strong>the</strong> political case that flows<br />
from it. Perhaps Meech <strong>La</strong>ke was a wise compromise. But how were citizens<br />
supposed to discern <strong>the</strong>ir leaders’ wisdom when Meech’s underlying<br />
compromises <strong>and</strong> philosophy were not shared with <strong>the</strong>m?<br />
Monahan bravely confronts <strong>the</strong> battalions of critics who attacked <strong>the</strong> Meech<br />
process as unacceptable in a democracy. His counterattack is more spirited<br />
than persuasive. For one thing, Monahan’s defence of <strong>the</strong> process is<br />
sidetracked into arguments about secrecy. His case also rests on three weakly<br />
related propositions. First, he implies that Meech’s excessive secrecy was a<br />
function of <strong>the</strong> process itself <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> “political inheritance of 1982” (Monahan<br />
1991: 9). But Cairns’ case—that <strong>the</strong> Meech process flowed from conscious<br />
political choice not immutable technical or legal requirements—is more<br />
powerful (Cairns 1991 : 259). Second, Monahan moves from seeing secrecy as<br />
an unpleasant necessity to justifying it as requisite to effectiveness in most<br />
human endeavours, not only politics. But to be convincing, Monahan must<br />
353
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
demonstrate why <strong>and</strong> when information should be withheld from citizens.<br />
What must we know? He ignores <strong>the</strong> harder question of whe<strong>the</strong>r democratic<br />
constitution making by its very nature dem<strong>and</strong>s extraordinary openness. In<br />
short, we require a careful democratic <strong>the</strong>ory of information not assertions<br />
about decision making which merely justify an excess of secrecy. Finally,<br />
Monahan argues that Meech critics employed process arguments to mask<br />
substantive disagreements. To a degree, this assertion raises empirical<br />
questions about <strong>the</strong> constitutional strategies employed. Perhaps Monahan’s<br />
“smoke screen” <strong>the</strong>sis is correct. But is <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke process<br />
democratically acceptable simply because several antagonists strategically<br />
blurred democratic critiques with substantive ones? By what criteria should<br />
we measure constitutional processes? To return to an earlier question, how<br />
should citizens respond when <strong>the</strong>y worry about <strong>the</strong> process but concur with <strong>the</strong><br />
substance of reform? Compelling answers to <strong>the</strong>se questions must flow from<br />
explicit democratic arguments. Monahan disappoints in this important task.<br />
Monahan’s volume reflects <strong>the</strong> competing, perhaps irreconcilable, pressures<br />
on scholars who try to be simultaneously relevant, iconoclastic, analytical <strong>and</strong><br />
prescriptive. He submits to <strong>the</strong> dictates of too many dem<strong>and</strong>ing taskmasters.<br />
Scholars <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong><br />
What roles should professors play in national constitutional debates? Should<br />
<strong>the</strong>y be “activists” as variously defined or is <strong>the</strong>ir primary duty to <strong>the</strong> pursuit of<br />
knowledge? How close should scholars be to governments <strong>and</strong> interest<br />
groups? Such questions irritate those colleagues for whom answers are selfevident,<br />
for whom “activism” is necessary <strong>and</strong> desirable <strong>and</strong> for whom<br />
“activism” <strong>and</strong> effective scholarship are complementary not competitive<br />
pursuits. My view is that answers to such questions are nei<strong>the</strong>r obvious nor<br />
easily arrived at. A serious dialogue is warranted.<br />
We need a serious research project on scholars as Canadian constitutional<br />
actors. Such a study, whose details cannot be explored here, would stress <strong>the</strong><br />
range of roles assumed <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> extent of scholarly involvement. What links<br />
exist between academics, governments, political parties, research institutes,<br />
<strong>the</strong> mass media <strong>and</strong> interest groups? Second, what is <strong>the</strong> range of scholarly<br />
views <strong>and</strong> how are <strong>the</strong>y shaped? Do certain disciplines “favour” particular<br />
constitutional solutions? Finally, how do professors <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r actors perceive<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir influence?<br />
<strong>The</strong> arguments in favour of scholarly activism are ascendant if not necessarily<br />
correct. In a troubled world, a monastic, self-directed <strong>and</strong> generally well-paid<br />
scholarly life can sometimes seem self-indulgent, wasteful <strong>and</strong> irrelevant even<br />
to its dedicated devotees. As Canadians, indeed North Americans, we are<br />
incessantly reminded that our society prizes action over introspection (Payne<br />
1981: 187). Second, <strong>the</strong> sociology <strong>and</strong> traditions of disciplines may propel<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir practitioners to action. My guess is that many political scientists, as<br />
practitioners of a diverse <strong>and</strong> ill-defined discipline, feel “impractical” when<br />
compared to a profession like law or to a “hard” social science like economics.<br />
Such a view lingers even in light of our discipline’s extensive contributions to<br />
important royal commissions, to debates about federal <strong>and</strong> provincial<br />
electoral boundaries <strong>and</strong> of course to constitutional controversies to cite a few<br />
telling examples. Viewed in this light, <strong>the</strong> Canadian political science<br />
community can arguably be seen as part of <strong>the</strong> state not an independent<br />
observer of it. Finally, although seldom studied, <strong>the</strong> modern university itself<br />
354
English-Canadian Scholars <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord<br />
pressures its members towards social activism. <strong>The</strong> demonstration of <strong>the</strong><br />
“relevance” of scholarly research is a preoccupation of modern universities.<br />
Social science <strong>and</strong> humanities research creates problems as its influence is<br />
difficult to demonstrate. Viewed from this angle, a stable of visible, committed<br />
<strong>and</strong> influential constitutional advisors is a prized university possession which<br />
merits nurture <strong>and</strong> encouragement. Finally, we must not presume that activism<br />
necessarily yields greater influence on events than more detached <strong>and</strong><br />
reflective scholarship. Over <strong>the</strong> long haul, independent scholarship may shift<br />
<strong>the</strong> agenda <strong>and</strong> reorient thought as new ideas are slowly transmitted to society<br />
<strong>and</strong> new generations.<br />
Conclusions<br />
As I write in early 1993, Canadians are in an eerie constitutional no man’s l<strong>and</strong>.<br />
We face a long list of unresolved constitutional business which now emits no<br />
siren call. <strong>The</strong> constitutional agenda is apparently on hold pending <strong>the</strong> results<br />
of important elections in Canada <strong>and</strong> Quebec. Or will an unforeseen event<br />
spark a constitutional blaze <strong>and</strong> arouse us from our state of alleged<br />
constitutional fatigue?<br />
<strong>The</strong> future of constitutional studies is likewise uncertain. <strong>The</strong> lull means that<br />
<strong>the</strong> moving constitutional target is momentarily stationary. Scholars can catch<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir breath, focus <strong>the</strong>ir energies <strong>and</strong> put complex events in context. <strong>The</strong><br />
national referendum on <strong>the</strong> Charlottetown Accord adds more ground to an<br />
already complex research terrain. Yet we cannot even gauge <strong>the</strong> breadth <strong>and</strong><br />
depth of scholarly commitment to Canadian constitutional studies. Will even a<br />
short-term decline in political interest lead to a scholarly exodus as o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
problems compete for scarce research time <strong>and</strong> commitment? Will a tiny<br />
contingent of constitutional stalwarts face <strong>the</strong> daunting task of interpreting a<br />
decade of constitutional turmoil? Will <strong>the</strong>ir dedication be enough to generate<br />
<strong>the</strong> iconoclastic <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>oretical scholarship that <strong>the</strong>ir task dem<strong>and</strong>s?<br />
Notes<br />
* I would like to thank Professor Kenneth McRoberts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> journal’s Editorial Board for<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir constructive criticisms.<br />
1. Some noteworthy exceptions are Donald W. Stevenson’s valuable essay “Ontario <strong>and</strong><br />
Confederation : A Reassessment” in R. Watts <strong>and</strong> D. Brown, eds., Canada : <strong>The</strong> State of <strong>the</strong><br />
Federation (Kingston, Ontario: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations,1989), 53-74 <strong>and</strong><br />
Gerald Friesen,“Manitoba <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord” in R. Gibbins, ed., Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong><br />
Canada : Perspectives from <strong>the</strong> West, 51-62. For a stimulating discussion of <strong>the</strong> inadequate<br />
scholarship on <strong>the</strong> constitutional positions of Atlantic Canadian governments, see David<br />
Milne,“Challenging <strong>Constitution</strong>al Dependency : A Revisionist View of Atlantic Canada”<br />
in J. McCrorie <strong>and</strong> M. MacDonald, eds., <strong>The</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>al Future of <strong>the</strong> Prairie <strong>and</strong><br />
Atlantic Regions of Canada (Regina : Canadian Plains Research Center, 1992), 308-17. In<br />
lamenting <strong>the</strong> inadequate study of provincial <strong>and</strong> territorial governments, I am not arguing<br />
that <strong>the</strong> federal government’s constitutional policy making is satisfactorily understood or<br />
studied.<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> obvious exception to this argument is <strong>the</strong> creative scholarship of Thomas J. Courchene.<br />
See, for example, “Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Socio-Economic Policy,” Canadian Public Policy,14<br />
supplement (September 1988), 63-80. See also R. Boadway, J. Mintz <strong>and</strong> D. Purvis, “<strong>The</strong><br />
Economic Policy Implications of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord” in K. Swinton <strong>and</strong> C. Rogerson,<br />
eds., Competing <strong>Constitution</strong>al Visions : <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord, 225-238.<br />
3. An exception is Charles Taylor’s work. See, for example, his “Shared <strong>and</strong> Divergent Values”<br />
in R. Watts <strong>and</strong> D. Brown eds., Options for Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto<br />
Press,1991), 53-76.<br />
355
IJCS / RIÉC<br />
4. If Andrew Cohen’s book is <strong>the</strong> principal object of Monahan’s displeasure, his ire is<br />
misplaced. Cohen’s book rests on a clear political grasp of Canadian constitutional life. See<br />
Andrew Cohen, A Deal Undone: <strong>The</strong> Making <strong>and</strong> Breaking of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord<br />
(Vancouver : Douglas <strong>and</strong> McIntyre, 1990).<br />
Bibliography<br />
Alboim, E. “Inside <strong>the</strong> News Story : Meech <strong>La</strong>ke as Viewed by an Ottawa Bureau Chief” in R.<br />
Gibbins, ed., Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Canada, 235-46.<br />
Behiels, Michael D., ed. <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Primer.<br />
Cairns, Alan C., edited by Williams, Douglas, E. Disruptions.<br />
Cairns, Alan C. <strong><strong>Charte</strong>r</strong> versus <strong>Federalism</strong> : <strong>The</strong> Dilemmas of <strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform. Montreal<br />
<strong>and</strong> Kingston : McGill Queen’s University Press, 1992.<br />
Cohen, Andrew. A Deal Undone : <strong>The</strong> Making <strong>and</strong> Breaking of <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord Vancouver<br />
<strong>and</strong> Toronto : Douglas <strong>and</strong> McIntyre, 1990.<br />
Gibbins, R. “A Sense of Unease: <strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord <strong>and</strong> <strong>Constitution</strong>-making in Canada” in<br />
Gibbins, ed., Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Canada, 121-30.<br />
Johnson, A.W. “<strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bonds of Nationhood” in Swinton <strong>and</strong><br />
Rogerson, eds., Competing Consitutional Visions, 145-54.<br />
Kruhlak, O. “<strong>Constitution</strong>al Reform <strong>and</strong> Immigration” in Gibbins, ed., Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Canada,<br />
201-14.<br />
MacKay, W. “Linguistic Duality <strong>and</strong> Distinct Society in Quebec : Declarations of Sociological<br />
Fact or Legal Limits on <strong>Constitution</strong>al Interpretation?” in Swinton <strong>and</strong> Rogerson, eds.,<br />
Competing <strong>Constitution</strong>al Visions, 65-80.<br />
Meekison, J. Peter. “Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Future of Senate Reform” in Swinton <strong>and</strong> Rogerson,<br />
eds., Competing <strong>Constitution</strong>al Visions, 113-20.<br />
Meisel, J. “Mirror? Searchlight? Interloper? : <strong>The</strong> Media <strong>and</strong> Meech” in Smith, MacKinnon <strong>and</strong><br />
Courtney, eds., After Meech <strong>La</strong>ke, 147-68.<br />
Monahan, Patrick J. Meech <strong>La</strong>ke : <strong>The</strong> Inside Story.<br />
Payne, B. “Devices <strong>and</strong> Desires : Corruption <strong>and</strong> Ethical Seriousness” in Fleishman, J. et al eds.,<br />
Public Duties: <strong>The</strong> Moral Obligations of Government Officials. Cambridge, Mass. :<br />
Harvard University Press, 1981, 175-203.<br />
Raboy, M. “Canadian Broadcasting, Canadian Nationhood : Two Concepts, Two Solitudes, <strong>and</strong><br />
Great Expectations” in Smith, MacKinnon <strong>and</strong> Courtney, eds., After Meech <strong>La</strong>ke, 181-98.<br />
Simeon, R. “Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Visions of Canada” in Swinton <strong>and</strong> Rogerson, eds., Competing<br />
<strong>Constitution</strong>al Visions, 295-306.<br />
Simeon, R. “Political Pragmatism Takes Precedence Over Democratic Process” in Behiels, ed.,<br />
<strong>The</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Primer, 119-31.<br />
Smith, Lynn. “<strong>The</strong> Distinct Society Clause in <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Accord : Could it Affect Equality<br />
Rights for Women?” in Swinton <strong>and</strong> Rogerson, eds., Competing <strong>Constitution</strong>al Visions, 35-<br />
54.<br />
Taras, D. “Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Television News” in Gibbins, ed., Meech <strong>La</strong>ke <strong>and</strong> Canada, 219-34.<br />
Taras, D. “How Television Transformed <strong>the</strong> Meech <strong>La</strong>ke Negotiations” in Smith, MacKinnon <strong>and</strong><br />
Courtney, eds., After Meech <strong>La</strong>ke, 169-80.<br />
Trudeau, Pierre Elliott. “Say Goodbye to <strong>the</strong> Dream of One Canada” in Gibbins, ed., Meech <strong>La</strong>ke<br />
<strong>and</strong> Canada, 65-72.<br />
Whyte, J. “<strong>The</strong> 1987 <strong>Constitution</strong>al Accord <strong>and</strong> Ethnic Accommodation” in Swinton <strong>and</strong><br />
Rogerson, eds., Competing <strong>Constitution</strong>al Visions, 263-70.<br />
356