One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

One. Step Forward, Two Steps Back The Royal York Hotel, Toronto, February 7 to 9: it strikes me that there is an internal contradiction between the very useful and interesting "Three Nations" constitutional model proposed by seasoned federalists such as Peter White and Gordon Robertson, and the procedural struggle for powersimultaneously played outamong Ottawa, aboriginal leaders and Quebecois both presentandabsent. Theconference thatI attended, at which substantial consensus was reached by ordinary Canadians, special interest groups and academics, does notseem to coincide with that attended byour leaders or reported in thepress. Iftypical ofresponses to all five constitutional conferences held from Halifax to Vancouver, this disjunction leaves ample room for both hope and fear. Fairly representative round-table workshops and plenaries led to very concrete recommendations not always "heard" by our leaders. Focussed on"Identity, Rights and Values," the Toronto conference was an important one: the agenda walked us through the Canadaclauseon the first day, distinct society and linguistic duality on the second, property rights and the notwithstanding clause (a mixed bag) on thethird. IfCanadians need a collective history lesson to understand and engage the issues, they now had a chance to brush up on each other's pasts. Listening to civilized and constructive suggestions from all quarters, this observer at least found herself genuinely movedon more thanoneoccasion by thedeep affection ofCanadians for their country. Ofcourse, self-selected delegates do not include the alienated silent majority; and a last-minute acceptance ofaboriginal or Quebec perspectives from some quarters ("we want'them' to feel wanted") is not entirely reassuring. Still, a nonspecialist 's and a qualifiedoptimist's briefimpressions mightbeofsome use, given the cynicism ofthe press in the face of the entire process and its possible results. On the Canada clause, which should perhaps go in thepreamble, it was felt that a brief, elegant statement of our values and identity implies the following: full recognition ofaboriginal people's inherent right to self-government; distinct society as a descriptive rather than prescriptive vision ofQuebec, butone that also, as with aboriginal partnership, entails certain powers; and recognition ofCanadian linguistic duality, celebrating cultural pluralism in both languages (multiculturalism). While possibly assisting with the legal interpretation ofthe Charter, such a clauseneed not contradict the Charter. Gender, ethnic, religious, and otherdifferences, as well as social and environmental concerns, should all be briefly acknowledged in striving to balance individual and collective rights, thus philosophically distinguishing our constitution from thatofthe UnitedStates. The ideaofa"talking"orwritten flag easily memorized byahighschool student was the way several contributors summed it up. There was not full concensus in all groups: despite (or perhaps because ot) its symbolic value, a significantminority felt that aCanadaclause is not needed in that it may create more problems than it solves. Understandably, by the end ofthe first day, some approved part but not all of it. Crucial but subtle questions ofsemantics in fact governed discussion and recommendations ondistinct society and linguistic duality, and merit emphasis. First, in anycontext, it was argued, "accommodation" and "tolerance"possess inaccurateor negativeconnotationsand shouldgive way to Journal ofCanadian Studies Vol. 26. No. 4 (Hiver 1991-92 Wimer) 3 "recognition" and "promotion." Secondly, in all cases, the words "minorities" and "majority" should be replaced by the less problematic term "communities." Given the selective nature of voices from Quebec and the West (although some uncompromising positions from both quarters were in fact represented), it is difficult to determine how representative the emerging consensus was on linguistic duality and distinct society. However, the questionofsemantics is linked to thatofhistory (and of historiography, as Michael Bliss's Creighton lecture suggests) - both have a powerful, unacknowledged impact on the current political scene. Although aboriginal rights were unfortunately not on the official agenda at this conference, Franco-Manitoban Raymond Brisson spoke for many in his endorsementofsuch rights in addition to (not insteadof) recognitionofQuebecas a distinct society. All too often, among Canadians, dialogue breaks down over terminology ratherthan ideology: ChiefOvide Mercredi throughoutseemed to me to be saying, sensibly, that Indian people are working for the equivalent ofrights and powers inherent in distinct society. Unlike ChiefMercredi, however, the average Canadian rarely understands one small point well worth pondering: that equality implies difference ratherthan sameness. As for Brisson, he argued that on linguisticduality we must transcend...