Socit qubcoise de science politique

Federalism as a Way of Life: Reflections on the Canadian Experiment Author(s): Samuel V. LaSelva Source: Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp. 219-234 Published by: Canadian Political Science Association and the Socit qubcoise de science politique Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3229211 Accessed: 22/12/2008 10:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cpsa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Canadian Political Science Association and Socit qubcoise de science politique are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique.

http://www.jstor.org

Federalismas a Way of Life: Reflections on the CanadianExperiment*

SAMUEL V. LASELVA

University of British Columbia

"Canadian federalism," Pierre Trudeau told the United States Congress, was "... a brilliant prototype for the moulding of tomorrow's civilization.'1 Canada was the kind of society in which different nations could live within the same state, and such a combination was "as necessary a condition of civilized life as the combination of men in society."2 A society is not simply made up of individuals, as the great social contract theorists of the seventeenth century had imagined. An obvious fact about any society is that it also consists of groups with distinctive ways of life. The Canadian constitutional settlement of 1867 had responded to this fact, and the Charterof Rights and Freedoms acknowledges that group rights are no less importantthan the rights of individuals. In this way, the Canadian constitution not only rejects the atomizing individualism of the American constitution but also envisages a different type of society. But there are difficulties inherent in the Canadian constitutional experiment, and virtually the whole of the Western political tradition appears to be against it. Reflecting on the cultural diversity of mankind, Kenneth McRae has noted that Western political thought has shown little respect for it, preferring instead to adopt universalistic, integrationist, or assimilationist principles.3 Nationalist thinkers did, of course, challenge
* An early version of this article was presentedat the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Kingston,Ontario,1991. The authoris grateful to Professor Daniel Salde (who served as the official commentator)and to the JOURNAL'S anonymousreaders,all of whom providedvaluablecriticisms. 1 Pierre Trudeau, Federalism and the French Canadians (Toronto: Macmillan, 1968), 179. 2 LordActon, Essays on Freedomand Power (New York:Meridian,1955), 160. 3 Kenneth McRae, "The Plural Society and the WesternPolitical Tradition,"this
12 (1979), 676. JOURNAL

Samuel V. LaSelva, Departmentof Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,BritishColumbiaV6T lZ1
Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, XXVI:2 (June/juin 1993). Printed in Canada / Imprim6 au Canada

220

SAMUEL V. LASELVA

the belief in universalism,but even they denied thatthe state could embracemorethanone way of life. Forthem,the only legitimatestateswere nation states. In the history of political thought,the Canadianconstitutionalexperiment to be caughtbetweenuniversalism andparticuappears larism.Even in Canadaitself, many scholarseitherenvisage the evolution of Canadian federalisminto a unitarystate,or predictits disintegration in responseto particularistic demandsfor local autonomy. Canadianshave available to them, however, an understanding of federalismthat mediates the destructivedemandsof universalismand To recapturethatunderstanding of Canadianfederalism, particularism. it is necessaryto explore its moral foundationsand to think of federalism as a way of life. When federalism is understoodin this way, it ceases to be a political or economic expedient and becomes a fundamentalmoralvalue. Moreover,the value thatfederalismas a way of life is most intimatelyconnected with is not freedom or diversity,but fraternity. Federalismas fraternityresponds to universalismand particularism by incorporatingand transcendingthe very forces that are set against it. By so doing, federalism as fraternitynot only provides a moralfoundationfor the Canadianexperiment,but challenges some of the most pervasiveimages of federalismand respondsto the inadequacies of the theoryandpracticeof consociationalfederalism. The Crisis of Canadian Federalism Federalism is almost neverequatedwith fraternity or describedas a way of life. It is morecommonlydepicted,in Canadaand elsewhere,as a political expedient,or as a constitutional or as a sociological arrangement, of some societies.4In fact, Canadianfederalismhas even characteristic in which the most important been describedas an affairof governments, elites. So long as issues areresolvedby judicial,politicalandbureaucratic in this way, it could be regarded federalismwas understood Canadian as a devoid of moral formof politicalandconstitutional pragmatism principle and preconception.However, with the adoptionof the Charterin 1982 and the failureof the Meech LakeConstitutional Accordin 1990 andthe Consensus Reporton the Constitutionin 1992, such an Charlottetown has becomeincreasingly unrealistic. imageof federalism Canadianfederalism,as Alan Cairnshas observed,is no longer an affair of governments;it now includes citizens and groups who have Not only do acquireda new constitutionalstatus throughthe Charter.5
4 See, for example, William Livingston, Federalism and Constitutional Change (Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1956), 1-15. 5 Alan Cairns, Disruptions: ConstitutionalStruggles,from the Charter to Meech McClellandand Stewart, 1991), 108. Lake,ed. by Douglas E. Williams (Toronto:

Abstract. Federalismis commonly described,in Canadaand elsewhere, as a political or a sociological characteristicof some soexpedient, or a constitutionalarrangement, cieties. Federalismcan also be a moral experimentthat seeks to realize a way of life. Canadais an instance of such an experiment.Moreover,the moral value that grounds the Canadianexperimentis not freedom or diversity,but fraternity.Federalismas fraternityhas its beginnings in Cartier'svision of Confederation,and provides a vision of federalismthatcan sustainCanadiansin theirtimes of trouble. Resume. Le federalisme est habituellement d6crit, au Canada comme ailleurs, comme une formule politique, ou un arrangement constitutionnel,ou encore comme une caract6ristique sociologique de certaines soci6ets. Le f6deralismepeut aussi etre une exp6rience morale visant la realisationd'un mode de vie. Le Canadaest un exemple d'une telle exp6rience.La valeurmorale sur laquelle le Canadarepose est la fraternite et non la libert6 ou la diversit6.Le f6deralismeen tant que fraternit6tire ses origines de la conception que Cartieravait de la Conf6d6rationet offre une vision du federalismequi peut aiderles Canadiensen ces temps difficiles.

these new actorscompete with politicians andjudges to shape the constitutionalorder;they have also transformedthe language of constitutional discourse.Canadianfederalismis now discussed in termsof conflicting constitutionalimages and competing ways of life.6 Constitutional discoursehas ceased to be a languageof political expediency and political compromise and is increasinglybecoming a branchof moral philosophy. Virtually no one was able to predictthat the Charterwould effect such a radical transformationof the constitutional order. When the Charter was adopted,some constitutionalscholarseven speculatedthat it would have no effect at all.7 Others saw the Charteras an attackon the sovereignty of the legislators;their concern was thatjudges would displacelegislatorsas policy makers.Still othersfearedthatthe Charter was part of the increasingAmericanizationof Canadiansociety; they supposed that the Charterwould bring increased "bureaucratization, centralizationand atomization."8Those who supported the Charter saw it both as a way of protectingthe rights of the people, and as a device for promotingnationalunity in the face of provincializingtendencies.9 What the Charterhas not yet producedis greaternational unity. Even as the Charterwas being adopted, some critics warned of its "limited capacities" for furtheringnationalunity. Donald Smiley, for example, objected to the Charterbecause it was adoptedwithout QueSee K. E. Swinton and C. J. Rogerson, eds., Competing Constitutional Visions (Toronto:Carswell, 1988). 7 Berend Hovius and Robert Martin, "The CanadianCharterof Rights and Freedoms in the SupremeCourtof Canada," CanadianBar Review61 (1983), 354. 8 CharlesTaylor,"AlternativeFutures:Legitimacy,Identityand Alienation in Late TwentiethCenturyCanada," in A. Cairns and C. Williams, eds., Constitutionalism, Citizenshipand Society in Canada (Toronto:University of TorontoPress for Supply and Services Canada,1985), 225. 9 Cairns,Disruptions,43. 6

222

SAMUEL V. LASELVA

bec's consent and would fuel Quebec nationalism;because it did nothfederalismor to alleviate westing to satisfy the demandsfor intrastate ern alienation;because it spoke of rights as the common possession of Canadians,yet it encouragedindividuals and groups to assert special claims and defendparticular interests.10 Smiley's last point might be stated differently. What the Charter has effected is a transferof sovereigntyfrom governmentto the people. Moreover, the transferhas been real and not merely symbolic. The Charterhas brought the citizenry into the constitutionalorderand has createda tension between citizens and governments."1 Jealous of their rights, individuals and groups now compete with governmentsto control the constitution.Governmentscan no longer treatthe constitution as theirpossession and modify it as they please. In a sense, the Charter representsa victory for Canadiandemocracy,because governmentsare now more responsive to the people. What may be of even greatersignificanceis thatthe Charter has also broughtaboutthe demise of executive federalism,at least with respectto constitutionalmatters. has produceda crisis of federalismprecisely because The Charter it has underminedthe legitimacy of executive federalism. Executive federalismor federalismby elites (judicial, political and bureaucratic) is virtually the only kind of federalism that Canadianshave known. it Moreover,federalismby elites is more than a political arrangement; also makescrucialmoralassumptions.Not only does executive federalism requireelites to practise accommodationand to be committed to nationalunity,but it supposesthatCanadawill continueto flourishonly if the French and English subculturesare kept separate. "Consociational federalism," S. J. R. Noel has written, "works best when the 'two solitudes' are preserved." " 'National' policies aimed at promoting bilingualism and biculturalism," Noel goes on to say, "may be misguidedin the sense thatthey may increasefrictionbetween separate communities which previously had little direct contact with one another."12 Because the Charterhas underminedfederalismby elites or consociationalfederalism, some scholars suppose that the Charterhas displacedfederalism.They suppose that Canadiansmust choose either the Charteror federalism.13 But there may be more to federalismthan elite accommodationand the two solitudes. The Charter may not be an10 Donald Smiley, "A DangerousDeed: The ConstitutionAct, 1982," in K. Banting andR. Simeon, eds., AndNo One Cheered(Toronto: Methuen,1983), 78-81. 11 Cairns,Disruptions, 108. 12 S. J. R. Noel, "Consociational Democracy and CanadianFederalism," in Kenneth McRae, ed., ConsociationalDemocracy (Toronto:McClellandand Stewart, 1974), 267. See also J. A. Laponce, Languages and Their Territories(Toronto: Universityof TorontoPress, 1987). 13 Alan C. Cairns, Charter VersusFederalism (Montreal:McGill-Queen's University Press, 1992), 3-10.

Federalism as a Way of Life: The Canadian Experiment

223

tagonistic to all forms of federalism, although it requires some rethinking of the moral dimensions of federalism. Universalists and Particularists The current crisis of Canadian federalism is not simply a political and constitutional crisis. It is also a moral crisis. By undermining consociational federalism, the Charter has forced Canadians to seek alternative foundations for federalism. But such a task is enormously problematic, because Canadians have frequently justified their existence as a nation by appealing to ideals that are ultimately uncongenial to federalism. Put differently, many Canadians have not been federalists. Moral philosophers have not been federalists either. In fact, most moral philosophers have embraced either universalistic or particularistic principles, and such principles are ultimately antagonistic to the way of life that federalism presupposes.14 "The sentiment which creates a federal state," wrote A. V. Dicey, "is the prevalence throughout the citizens of... two feelings which are to a certain extent inconsistent." The citizens of a federal state must have both "the desire for national unity and the determination to maintain the independence of each man's separate State."15 Many Canadians have possessed one or the other of these two feelings but not both. If Canadians are to rethink federalism, they will have to take Dicey's insight seriously and discard some of their most prized self-images as well as a good deal of contemporary moral philosophy. The problem that confronts Canadians begins with Confederation. Confederation has failed Canadians, because it has not provided them either with a foundation myth or with a moral ideal that can sustain them during their times of trouble. It was once supposed that Confederation could not generate these things because it was the work of pragmatic politicians who avoided issues of principle in order to achieve political consensus. Sir John A. Macdonald, for example, has been described as someone who "did not attempt to plumb the depths of political theory or speculate on the rights of man." Rather, he is said to have been concerned "with the intricate details of concrete complexities" and to have believed that the politician should never aspire to the "alien role of prophet, philosopher or engineer."16 Such an assessment
14 See, for example, W. H. Walsh, "Open and Closed Morality," in B. Parekhand R. N. Berki, eds., TheMoralityof Politics (London:George Allen, 1972), 17. 15 A. V. Dicey, Introductionto the Study of the Law of the Constitution(London: Macmillan, 1959), 142-43. See also RichardVernon, "The Federal Citizen," in M. Westmacottand R. Olling, eds., Perspectives on CanadianFederalism (Scarborough:Prentice-Hall,1988), 4. 16 CarlBerger, The Writing of CanadianHistory (Toronto:OxfordUniversity Press, 1976), 232-33.

224

SAMUEL V. LASELVA

of Macdonald and of Confederationcaptures only part of the truth. Macdonaldmay not have been a philosopher,but he did have a vision. And Confederation was much more than a series of pragmatic compromises. In fact, Confederationwas inspiredby several conflicting visions, and most of them were incompatiblewith federalism. That Macdonaldwas no federalisthardlyneeds emphasis.17 Macdonald explicitly statedthathis own preferencewas for a unitarystate, so as to avoid the turmoilsthat had plagued Americanfederalism.But there was more to Macdonald's view of Canadathan a strong central government.Macdonaldwas a believer in empire, of the commercial kind. He saw himself as the custodian of the idea of the St. Lawrence empire.Moreover,the idea of empire appealedto others as well. "The big, unexpressed 'theory of Confederation,'" A. R. M. Lower wrote, "... was the one that lay behind all the argumentsfor the new union: build a new state, and BUILD! Build the state, shove out its boundaries as far as possible, build railways, build industriesand cities!"18Many of those who supportedConfederation, as FrankScott said, had tiredof "the pettiness of the politics and of public life in the individualprovinces, the inefficiency of their local economies, the scant opportunity 9 they offered to men of ability and ambition." Such an understanding of the purposeof Confederationlends supportto the French-Canadian complaintthatit was engineeredby men who caredlittle aboutthe local cultures and provincial particularismsthat form a crucial part of a federalstate.20 Many French Canadiansare not federalists either. They support the Confederationsettlementonly to the extent that it enables them to flourishaccordingto theirown culture,to controltheirown destiny,and have a home, to createa society in theirown image.21 FrenchCanadians Their relationshipswith the rest of Canadaare inand it is Quebec.22 strumental. This is why the economic benefits of unity are so often relied on to counter Quebec separatism and to re-establish a modus
17 For a compelling critiqueof Macdonald'sviews, see RobertVipond, Libertyand Community:Canadian Federalism and the Failure of the Constitution(Albany: StateUniversityof New YorkPress, 1991). 18 A. R. M. Lower,Evolving CanadianFederalism(Durham:Duke UniversityPress, 1958), 25-26. 19 Frank Scott, Essays on the Constitution(Toronto:University of TorontoPress, 1977), 5. 20 For a discussion of the tensions between commercialempire and culturalparticularisms, see George Grant, Lament for a Nation (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart,1970), 40-41,54-55, 76. 21 A. I. Silver, The French-CanadianIdea of Confederation1864-1900 (Toronto: Universityof TorontoPress, 1982). 22 Michel Brunet, "The French Canadians' Search for a Fatherland," in Peter McGrawHill, 1966), 56-60. Russell, ed., Nationalismin Canada (Toronto:

Federalism as a Way of Life: The Canadian Experiment

225

vivendi between Quebec and the rest of Canada.But even instrumental federalismcan come at too high a price. "The two majorities," Rene Levesque predicted, "will inevitably collide with one another..., Moreover,federalism causing hurts that finally will be irreparable."23 is regardedas a mistakenand dangerousideal, since it divides the self andrequiresan individual(both humanand collective) to be two things at once. "To divide one's allegiance, affiliation, or identity," it has been said, "is to courtdisaster."24 Oppositionto federalismis not uniquelyCanadian.A recent study of Confederationhas attemptedto show that Macdonald's views were rooted in the Scottish Enlightenmentand its commercial ideology.25 That ideology, it has been frequentlysuggested, is destructiveof local cultures and looks ultimately to a homogeneous, universal state. This kind of state can enhance its appeal enormouslyby drawing on moral universalism,the belief thattheremustbe a single scale of values for all people. Such a belief is the old theoryof naturallaw in a new form. As opponentsof universalism,Quebec separatistscan draw on equally respectableand potentphilosophicalideas. Behind the separatistsare the nationalists and romantics who revolted against the Enlightenment. Few changes, ArthurLovejoy observed, have been more profound or more momentousthanthatrevolt. Those thinkerscame to believe "that diversityitself was of the essence of excellence"; they coupled a strong with the cultivationof individual,national antipathyto standardization The currentcrisis of Canadianfederalismis, and racial peculiarities.26 in one of its dimensions, little more than an instance of the crisis that has repeatedlyplaguedphilosophicalthought,a crisis thathas occurred wheneveruniversalismandparticularism have dominatedan epoch and set themselves againsteach other. Federalism and Fraternity The real challenge is to find a way of embracingboth the universaland the particular.That challenge also forms a key problem of Canadian federalism.In the context of Canadianfederalism,however, the terms of discourse have changed and the problem has become how citizens can have two identities and two sets of loyalties. Many Canadians,
Ren6 L6vesque,An Optionfor Quebec (Toronto:McClellandand Stewart, 1968), 26. 24 RichardHandler,Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec (Madison: Universityof Wisconsin Press, 1988), 49. 25 PeterJ. Smith, "The Ideological Originsof CanadianConfederation,"this JOURNAL 20 (1987), 3. 26 A. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press, 1964), 292. 23

226

SAMUELV. LASELVA

David Elkins and RichardSimeon have written,have strongties to their local communities and equally strong ties to the national community. They want more freedom of action for theirprovincialcommunitiesas well as a centrethat can speak for all of Canada."The imaginativefeat required,"accordingto Elkins and Simeon, "is to find a way to reconcile and harmonizewhat may on the surfaceappearto be irreconcilable images."27The simplest answer is to say that federalismis predicated on the existence of multipleloyalties. Thereis also a more complex answer. Behind Canadianfederalism is George Cartier'sintriguingidea of a Canadianpolitical nationality,which has roots in the ideal of fraternity. Canadianfederalismhas moral foundationsprecisely because of its connection with the powerful ideal of fraternity.Moreover,the concept of fraternitycontainswithin it the very identities and loyalties that federalismpresupposes. The most vigorous defenderof federalismin Canadawas not Macdonald but George-EtienneCartier.Unlike Macdonald,who desired a unitarystate and did whathe could to secureit, Cartierwas an unequivocal federalist. He was also the virtual equal of Macdonaldin the accomplishment of Confederation.Yet Cartier'sview of Confederation remains something of a mystery. His most recent biographershave attempted to dispel the mystery but have arrivedat conflicting conclusions. In one account,Cartieris presentedas a leaderwho had the good nationalismof his sense to abandonthe destructiveFrench-Canadian in mature a liberal constitutionalist and a and become his youth years is In the other Cartier Canadian nation-builder.28 viewed account, great as a Montrealbourgeois who served the economic interestsof his class and regardedConfederationas a means for the accomplishmentof his bourgeoisobjectives.29 Despite their opposing assessments, Cartier's biographers are agreedthathe was a man of actionratherthana political thinker.In one of the few systematic studies of Cartier'spolitical ideas, it is even suggested that "Cartier was not the man to whom abstractions appealed."30In fact, Cartierliked to point out that a man could read 20 books on nationalpolicy, and remain a political blunderer.But Cartier made at least one importantexception to his own rule of political pru27 David J. Elkins and Richard Simeon, Small Worlds:Provinces and Parties in CanadianPolitical Life (Toronto: Methuen, 1980), 286-87. 28 Alastair Sweeny, George-Etienne Cartier (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976), 11, 104, 327. 29 "Business, churchandethnic leadersused Cartier,"BrianYounghas written,"as their agent and intermediaryin imposing their largely harmoniousclass interests." See BrianYoung, George-EtienneCartier:MontrealBourgeois (Montreal: McGill-Queen'sUniversityPress, 1981), 135, xi. 30 JohnCooper, "The Political Ideas of George EtienneCartier,"CanadianHistorical Review23 (1942), 286.

Federalism as a Way of Life: The Canadian Experiment

227

dence. His great speech in support of Confederation, delivered in Quebec in 1865, contains the very abstractions that Cartier claimed to abhor. In it, Cartier addressed the vital issues of Confederation in a language more suited to the political theorist than to the practical politician. He spoke of justice and injustice, of democracy and mob rule, of national greatness, of assimilation and cultural pluralism.3' Cartier's speech is not the work of an accomplished political thinker, yet students of Canadian federalism have turned to it as a crucial statement of the ideals and objectives of Confederation. For no student of Canadian federalism has Cartier's speech had more significance than Donald Smiley. In his last book, Smiley spoke of "Cartier's noble vision."32 In an earlier work, Smiley relied on Cartier to establish that Canada must be one political community rather than two, otherwise "it is not worth preserving."33 Smiley understood the core of Cartier's position to be the rejection of assimilationist nationalism coupled with the belief that political allegiance should be uninfluenced by linguistic and cultural affiliation.34 Put differently, Canada is sometimes said to be a country based on "limited identities"; it is a country based on political allegiance alone, or a country that does not impose a single way of life on its citizens.35 Canada may be the kind of country that Cartier wished it to become, but what still needs to be made explicit is the foundational value that unites Canadians. If Canadians are so different among themselves, what moral value keeps them together? Cartier himself provided no simple or direct answer to this question. Those who have come after him, however, have been more explicit. Pierre Trudeau once argued that Canadian federalism was incompatible with emotional appeals and should base itself on reason. For Trudeau, federalism rejected the emotionalism of separatists and nationalists and based itself on the rational consensus that held Canadians together.36 William Morton pinned his hopes on the Canadian belief in Debateson theSubject North 31 Parliamentary of the Confederation of theBritish cited as American Provinces(Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865),53-62. Henceforth Debates. Confederation
32 D. V. Smiley, TheFederal Conditionin Canada (Toronto: McGraw-HillRyerson,

1987),143. V. Smiley,TheCanadian PoliticalNationality 33 Donald Methuen, (Toronto: 1967), 128.

34 Donald Smiley, "Reflections on CulturalNationhoodand Political Communityin Canada," in K. Cartyand P. Ward,eds., Entering the Eighties: Canada in Crisis OxfordUniversityPress, 1980), 28. (Toronto: 35 J. M. S. Careless, " 'LimitedIdentities' in Canada," CanadianHistorical Review 50 (1969), 1. See also W. L. Morton, The CanadianIdentity(Toronto:University of TorontoPress, 1972), 85, 111. 36 Trudeau, Federalismand the French Canadians, 194-97.

228

SAMUEL V. LASELVA

mutualaccommodationand tolerance.And A. R. M. Lower would not allow himself to believe that "we [have] lived together for [so long] merely to see the Canadianexperimentfail."37These answers may be satisfactoryin themselves, but they are feeble responses to the kind of challenge that federalistsmust meet. Nationalistsand separatists,after all, do not appeal solely to emotion. Their strongestappeal is to community. They insist that there is a common bond and naturalidentity among those who sharea languageor a culture.If Canadianfederalism is to be regardedas more thana political or economic expedient,then it mustdrawon a value thatcan rival the moralappealof nationalism. The value requiredappearsto be implicit in Cartier's vision of Confederationand his correspondingidea of a Canadianpolitical nationality. For Cartier,Confederationhad three great objectives, one of which was sharedby virtually all those who supportedit. Confederation, Cartiersaid, "was necessary for our commercial interests, prosperity and efficient defense."38 But Cartierwas also devoted to the Frenchnationalityandhe believed thatthe union of Frenchand English in a British North American Confederationwas the best assuranceof the survival of the French race.39 Having said that Confederationprovided economic advantagesas well as guaranteesfor the survivalof the Frenchrace, Cartiermight have concluded his speech. Yet he went on to say that Confederationwould bring into existence a new kind of nationality. Confederationwould be unacceptableif Frenchand English had come togethermerely to war with each other;it would be equally If unacceptableif it created an all-inclusive Canadiannationalism.40 Confederation was to succeed, it had to createa new kind of nationality, which Cartiercalled a political nationality. By advocating the creation of such a nationality,Cartierdid not simply reject assimilationistnationalism;he also envisaged a new kind of relationbetween people with differentlanguages and cultures. "We were of differentraces," Cartiersaid, "not for the purposeof warring againsteach other,but in orderto compete and emulatefor the general welfare."41Cartierwas not appealingmerely to the economic advantages of co-operation.Cartierdid have a greatvision of nationaldevelopment, but even his vision of nationaldevelopment, as John Cooper observed, "had an importancebeyond the strategic or the commer37 A. R. M. Lower, "Two Ways of Life: The PrimaryAntithesis of CanadianHistory," in Carl Berger,ed., Approachesto Canadian History (Toronto:University of TorontoPress, 1967), 28. 38 Confederation Debates, 56, 55, 59. 39 Ibid., 57. 40 Ibid.,60. 41 Ibid. By joining in the largerunion, wrote A. R. M. Lower, "the two races surely tacitly agreed to bury the hatchetand to try to live amicably together" (Evolving CanadianFederalism, 16).

Federalismas a Wayof Life: The CanadianExperiment

229

cial." For Cartier,projectsof nationaldevelopmentpresupposeda degree of co-operationthatwouldjoin all BritishAmerica "in the bond of common endeavour" and produce "a common, or national pride."42 Cartieralso believed that Frenchand English sharedan identity. "We had," Cartier said, "the same sympathies and we all desired to live For Cartier,Canadawas to be a countryin underthe BritishCrown."43 which differentways of life flourished,but whose peoples had come togetherto promotethe good of all and were unitedby a political nationality with which "neitherthe nationalorigin, nor the religion of any individualwould interfere."44 FrenchandEnglishagreedboth to live By joining in Confederation, would standfor a new kindof nationalapartandto live together.Canada Cartier did nothimselfuse the wordfraterity anda new kindof fraternity. politicalnationality appearsto prenity,yet his discussionof a Canadian politicalnasupposeit, at least in some measure.Of course,the Canadian it could not requireintense tionalitycould be only a partialfraternity; emotionalbondsbetweenFrenchandEnglishor demanda completeidenWhatthe Canadian did suppose fraternity tity of sentimentsand interests. was thatpeoples with distinctiveways of life could possess good will toin commonendeavours, wardseach other,participate develop and sustain and operatepoliticalinsticommon allegiancesand common sentiments, tutionsfor the welfare of all. Cartierspoke of such things,but left them nameless. There is, however, a traditionof Canadianfederalism-to to belong-that explicitlyconnectsfederalismand which Cartier appears for us," wroteHenriBourassa,"is the whole "The fatherland, fraternity. of distinctculturesandprovinces."French thatis a federation of Canada, andEnglishareseparated by languageandreligion,Bourassaadded,"but unitedin a sense of brotherhood."45 If Cartier'spolitical nationalityas well as a traditionof Canadian then fedfederalistthoughtcontainwithin them an appealto fraternity, eralistscan respondto the separatistchallenge by appealingto a value thatnationaliststhemselves embrace.When nationalistsand separatists describe their country as their "fatherland," they imply that citizens should treateach other as brothersand sisters. The value that nationalists appeal to is fraternity.It is the imagining of fraternity, as Benedict Andersonhas observed, that gives meaning to the nationalist'sidea of the nation and motivatescitizens willingly to die for it.46The fraternity
42 Cooper,"The Political Ideasof George-EtienneCartier,"291. 43 Confederation Debates, 59. 44 Ibid., 60. 45 Cited in Ramsay Cook, Canada, Quebec and the Uses of Nationalism (Toronto: McClellandand Stewart,1986), 190. 46 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities(London: Verso, 1991), 7. See also AnthonySmith,National Identity(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991), 76.

230

SAMUEL V. LASELVA

of nationalismunites a strongemotionalcontentwith the sentimentsof kinship,friendshipandlove in the heightenedatmosphereof something Nationalistsembracea primordialidea of fraternity,atlike religion.47 tach it to the nation, and use it to characterizethe type of relation that exists between those who sharea cultureor a languageor a way of life. But the concept of fraternityis more complex than nationalistsappear willing to allow. What nationalistsfail to notice is that the idea of fraternity looks two ways. Fraternitylooks to those who share a way of life; it also looks to those who have adopted alternativeways of life. thanthe brotherhood and sisterhoodof all Thereis no greaterfraternity people.48Moreover,it may not be possible to confine fraternityin the way that the nationalistprogrammepresupposes. "If fellowship," it has been asked, "is morallycompelling in partbecause it connotes respect and concern for others..., is it not compromisedwhen confined in expressionto a particular groupof people?"49 federalistswant to expand Nationalistswant to confine fraternity; it. Moreover,the fraternityof federalismdoes not necessarily exclude the fraternitythat nationalistsseek to realize, since federalism divides the identitiesand loyalties of citizens and assumes thateach citizen will be a memberof two communities.HenriBourassaappealedto such an idea when he insisted thatFrench-Canadian patriotismmust include all Canadians."Ourduties," he wrote, extend not only "towardourselves and our nationality" but also "towardCanadaand our fellow citizens of a foreign origin."50 Duties to other Canadiansmay sometimes conflict with the duties towardsthe French-Canadian nationality,but both can be duties of citizenship and fraternity.Of course, fraternityis too importantan ideal to be confined only to other Canadians.This is why of Canada.51 Federaliststurn federalistscan envisage the disappearance not to Aristotle but to Thucydides:Aristotle was unable to imagine a world without Athens; Thucydidescould see a world in which Athens was no more.
New Society 3 (1975), 472. E. J. Hobsbawn,"Fraternity," See W. W. Tarn,"Alexanderthe Greatand the Unity of Mankind," Proceedings that of the BritishAcademy 19 (1933), 137, 146. Tarndiscusses a type of fraternity rejects assimilation and takes account of diversity. See also Henri Bergson, The TwoSources of Morality and Religion (New York:Anchor Books, 1935), 77-78; James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty,Equality,Fraternity (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress, 1967), 221; and NathanGlazer, "Liberty,Equality,FraternityHarvard Univerand Ethnicity," in his EthnicDilemmas 1964-1982 (Cambridge: sity Press, 1983), 228-29. 49 Caroline McCulloch, "The Problem of Fellowship in Communitarian Theory," Political Studies32 (1984), 447. 50 Henri Bourassa, "French-Canadian Patriotism," in R. Cook, ed., French-Canadian Nationalism(Toronto: Macmillan, 1969), 119. 51 Trudeau, Federalism and the French Canadians, 177. See also Smiley, The Canadian Political Nationality, 132-34. 47 48

Federalism as a Way of Life: The Canadian Experiment Federalism as a Way of Life

231

Federalism is not simply a moral ideal. It is also a constitutional device that has crucial implications for the kind of life that citizens can live. Politicians and ordinary Canadians understand as much. That is why some Canadians complain that the constitution is not federal enough, while others believe that federalism is inhospitable to their way of life. Canadian constitutional scholars, however, normally prefer to analyze federalism formally with almost no regard to its substantive moral content. Not only does formal federalism leave the most important issues to the political process, but it transforms federalism into another form of politics. As a form of politics, federalism may fail to realize the way of life presupposed by it. Even political theorists do not give sufficient attention to the moral dimensions of federalism. Political theorists almost always connect federalism with the political virtues. Federalism, it is often said, is a form of pluralism; and pluralism implies diversity and freedom.52 The Constitution of the United States is often considered the most famous example of such an understanding of federalism. Federalism has also been connected with civic humanism and the republican tradition, both in Europe and America.53 In European political thought, it was Pierre Joseph Proudhon who most closely linked federalism with democracy and civic humanism. For Proudhon, federalism was a device for enhancing citizen participation in atomized societies.54 Others, like Lord Acton, regard federalism as the solution to the problem of totalitarian nationalism; by dividing loyalties, federalism prevents the allinclusive politics that such nationalism presupposes.55 When federalism is taken to be a political virtue, it is almost always connected with one of the dimensions of freedom; and, as such, either neglects or undervalues the moral importance of community. As a political virtue, federalism appears to express no more than "agnosticism about community."56 But federalism can also be a moral virtue. As a moral virtue, federalism rejects agnosticism and affirms the moral
52 PrestonKing, "Against Federalism," in R. Benewick, ed., Knowledgeand Belief in Politics (London:GeorgeAllen, 1973), 152. 53 For a discussion of the complexities of American federalism and its connection with civil humanism,see Isaac Kramnick,"The 'GreatNationalDiscussion': The Discourse of Politics in 1787," Williamand Mary Quarterly45 (1988), 15-23. See also Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of ModernRepublicanism(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 28-39. 54 RichardVernon, "Freedom and Corruption: Proudhon'sFederalPrinciple," this
14 (1981), 775. JOURNAL

55 Vernon, "The FederalCitizen,' 11. 56 R. Whitaker,Federalismand Democratic Theory(Kingston:Instituteof IntergovernmentalRelations, 1983), 45, 32.

232

SAMUEL V. LASELVA

importanceof community.Moreover,the moral virtue of federalismis such that it aims to realize the two types of fraternitytogetherwith the communitiesthey imply. Americanand Europeanfederalistsappearto give primacyto the political virtues,but Canadianscan groundfederalism in the moralvalue of fraternity. The fraternity of Canadian federalism is expressed not only throughregional equalization schemes, but also through the welfare state. These features of Canadianfederalism,PierreTrudeauhas written, "give Canadiansa sense of belonging to one nation."57National social and economic programmes, DeborahCoyne has written,contribute "to our sense, however fragile, of shared national community." They express "our commitmentto promotinggreatersocial justice and a fairer, more compassionate society."58 The Charterof Rights and Freedomswas directedat a similarobjective. It aimed, however imperfectly, at creating a common identity and fellowship among all Canadians. Canada, it is sometimes suggested, is superior to the United States because it is a more humaneand fraternalsociety.59If Canadais such a society, the reason is that fraternity has been a concern not only of Canadiansocialists but also of Canadianfederalists. Unlike socialists, however, federalistsvalue diversity. Moreover, the diversitythatfederalistsvalue is itself a type of fraternity. Thereis a kind of fraternitythat can be realized only in local and regional communities,or only by those who sharea cultureor a language.Individuals who are deprivedof theircultureor local communitycannotsustain themselves.Outsidemy communityor culture,CharlesTaylorhas written, "I wouldn't know who I was as a human subject.... I would be unable to function as a full human subject."60 Federalistsare not universalists, precisely because they value local communities and local cultures. But federalists are not particularists either. The imaginative feat of federalismis thatit uses the complex concept of fraternity to accommodateboth the universalandthe particular within the same state.

57 Donald Johnston,ed., Pierre TrudeauSpeaks Out on Meech Lake (Toronto:General Paperbacks,1990), 30-31. 58 Deborah Coyne, "The Meech Lake Accord and the Spending Power Proposals: FundamentallyFlawed," in Michael Behiels, ed., The Meech Lake Primer (Ottawa:Universityof OttawaPress, 1989), 246. 59 Gad Horowitz, "Tories, Socialists and the Demise of Canada," in H. D. Forbes, ed., Canadian Political Thought (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1985), 353-59. 60 Charles Taylor, "Why Do Nations Have to Become States?" in S. French,ed., PhilosophersLook at Confederation(Montreal:CanadianPhilosophicalAssociation, 1979), 22-23.

Federalism as a Way of Life: The Canadian Experiment

233

Why Federalism Matters Academics spend endless amounts of time studying federalism, William Rikerhas complained,even thoughfederalismmakes "hardlyany differenceat all" in the way people are governed.61 But Rikerwas writas a theorist and behavioural ing political political scientist, ratherthan as a moral philosopher.Federalismcan mattermorally because it can seek to realize fraternity.Some Canadianstudentsof federalism have understoodas much, although they have not always expressed themselves adequately.They have said that Canadais a tolerantsociety, or based on mutual accommodation,or allows many ways of life to coexist. But there is more to the Canadianexperiment.Canadais a country in which many ways of life flourish,but it is also a countrywhich has attemptedto create a single way of life. Canadianshave diverse ways of life and a common way of life precisely because they have soughtto realize the complex but powerfulideal of fraternity. Fraternity,however, is a difficult ideal to realize. Not only has Canadasometimes failed to realize fraternalrelations between French andEnglish Canadians, but AboriginalCanadianshave not been treated at all. Their treatmenthas been paternalistic,and their defraternally mandfor native self-governmentwithin Canadacan be interpreted as a demandthatthe ideal of fraternityshould apply to them as well. Federalism can facilitate the realizationof such a demandbecause it enables each citizen to have two loyalties andtwo identities.As federalcitizens, Aboriginal Canadians would retain their distinctive way of life and sharein a way of life that is common to other Canadians.But there are limits to what federalismcan accomplish. The very divisions of federalism can also frustratethe realizationof fraternity,since they do not precludeconflict between the ways of life that are constitutiveof Canada. When such a conflict occurs, it not only turns Canadiansagainst each other,but often createsa tension within each citizen. To eliminate the conflict completely, it would be necessary to abandonfederalism and embraceeither particularism or universalism.62 To embraceparticularismor universalism,however, is to reject the Canadianexperiment andto give up a way of life. There are, of course, ways of thinkingaboutfederalismthatdo not Federalismcan be regardedas a political give prominenceto fraternity. and economic expedient with almost no moral content. When federalism is viewed in this way, it is an institutionalarrangement thatdivides powers between nationaland local governmentsbut makes no attempt to develop a common way of life among all citizens. Canadiansare fa61 W. Riker,"Six Books in Searchof a Subjector Does FederalismExist andDoes It Matter?"Comparative Politics 2 (1969-1970), 135, 145. 62 CompareGlazer,EthnicDilemmas,228-29.

234

SAMUELV. LASELVA

miliar with such an understandingof federalism and have come to know it as consociational federalism. A key assumptionof consociational federalism,as ArendLijphart has observed,is thatsocial peace is possible in culturallyheterogeneoussocieties only if the subculturesare kept separate. "Close contacts," Lijpharthas written, "are likely to lead to strainandhostility."63 Canadiansalso have availableto them an image of federalismthat disputesLijphart'sassumption.The beginningsof the alternativeimage can be tracedto Confederation and to Cartier'sidea of a Canadianpolitical nationality.Henri Bourassacontributed to the alternativeimage as did PierreTrudeau.Trudeauilluminatedone dimension of the alternative image when he said that British Columbianscould "go it alone" but agreed to pay taxes to the federal governmentso that some of the money could be used "to help the less fortunateprovinces." Regional economic inequities,Trudeau added,can lead to disunity "if we arenot willing to considerthatwe are our brother'skeeperin all of Canada."64 The alternativeimage sees federalismas the means thatenables different nationalitiesboth to live togetherand to live apart."Federalism," K. C. Wheare wrote, "has provided a device throughwhich differing nationalitiescould unite, and while retainingtheir own distinctive national existence, attemptto create in additiona new sense of common There is a traditionof Canadianfederalistthought that nationality."65 shares K. C. Wheare's idea of federalism, links it to the two faces of fraternity,and makes moral demands both on citizens and governments.
63 Arend Lijphart, "Consociational Democracy," in McRae, ed., Consociational Democracy, 83. 64 Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Conversation with Canadians (Toronto: University of TorontoPress, 1972), 207-08. 65 Kenneth Wheare, "Federalism and the Making of Nations," in Arthur Macmahom, ed., Federalism Mature and Emergent (New York: Russell & Russell, 1962), 35.