The Marxist Quarterly Autumn 1965

Nelson Clarke

"All that we have seen and heard has led us to the conviction that Canada is in the most critical period of its history since Confederation. We believe that there is a crisis, in the sense that Canada has come to a time when decisions must be taken and developments must occur leading either to its break-up, or to a new set of conditions for its future existence. We do not know whether the crisis will be short or long. We are convinced that it is here. The signs of danger are many and serious."

It was in these words, that the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bieulturalism, last February, summed up its preliminary findings following a process of opinion-sounding in both French and English Canada.

The Commissioners went on to define the nature of the crisis:

The chief protagonists, whether they are entirely conscious of it or not, are French speaking Quebec and English speaking Canada. And it seems to us to be no longer the traditional conflict between a majority and a minority. It is rather a conflict between two majorities; that which is a majority in all Canada, and that which is a majority in the entity of Quebec.

That is to say, French speaking Canada acted for a long time as though at least it has accepted the idea of being merely a privileged ethnic minority. Today, the kind of opinion we met so often in the province regards Quebec practically as an autonomous society, and expects her to be recognized as such.

FOR A NEW PACT OF CONFEDERATION 17

This attitude goes bark to a fundamental expectation for French Canada, that is, to be an equal partner with English speaking Canada. If this idea is found to be impossible, because such equality is not believed in or is not acceptable, we believe the sense of deception will bring decisive consequences. An important element in French-speaking Quebec is already tempted to go it alone.

The Commissioners, in their preliminary report, did not draw the full conclusions from this analysis. Yet it seems self-evident that once the problem is so recognized, the solution for it must be embodied in far-reaching changes in the state structure, the organization of government in Canada.

This was the conclusion, already drawn three and a half years ago by the Communist Party, when its 17th National Convention declared: "The Communist Party of Canada supports the demand for a new Canadian Constitution; for the negotiating, on a completely equal footing, of a new confederal pact between French and English Canada, safeguarding the equality of rights and the interests of each, and containing explicit guarantees of the right of national self-determination for French Canada."

How does this matter stand now? The hard reality is that while the idea of a new constitution which would recognize the existence of two nations, their right to full equality, and to self-determination, has made some progress in our country, that progress is not nearly rapid enough to provide any guarantee at all that the crisis is going to be resolved in such a way as to preserve Canada. The continued existence of this country is in great doubt.

It is in great doubt because so many English Canadians have not yet grasped the essential fact of the crisis, or if they have begun to grasp it, see no way in which it can reasonably be resolved. It is in great doubt because in response to this English-Canadian incomprehension, so many French Canadians are coming to the conclusion that there is no hope of realizing their aspirations within any kind of Canadian Confederation.

The problem is illustrated by the increasing divergence in the course of development of political issues and political attitudes within each nation.

For example, the government of Canada in consultation with the provinces worked out a new basis for amendment of the present

18 THE MARXIST QUARTERLY

constitution of Canada—the British North America Act. These proposals, which became known as the Fulton-Favreau formula, provide for elimination of that carry-over from colonialism which [sic] at Westminster. But at the same time, they have the effect of necessitates amendment of the BNA Act by the British Parliament freezing the existing state structure which treats Quebec as one of ten provinces, instead of as the state of one of two nations.

The point to be made here is that these important propositions with respect to the Canadian constitution were endorsed by the legislatures of the nine English provinces, with a minimum of perfunctory debate, and in an atmosphere of vast public apathy. In Quebec, on the other hand, they have become a central political issue, the subject of great public discussion, and extensive agitation, the focal point of difference between the government and the official opposition in the legislature. They have still not been adopted, and the possibility remains that the Lesage government will find it impossible to press them through.
To take another example. Extensive and elaborate preparations are being made in English Canada to celebrate the centennial of confederation in 1967. Yet in Quebec, both this coming event, and the annual observance of Canada Day is looked upon as anything but a cause for celebration, and by a minority at least as an occasion for active demonstrations of protest.

Obviously, when the peoples of two parts of a country begin to think and act in such completely different directions on matters of this importance, the question must arise as to how much longer they will be prepared to remain together within one country.

Besides those in English Canada who have great difficulty in grasping the fact that there is a crisis, there are others who, while admitting that such a crisis is present, question whether anything can be done about it or whether anything ought to be done about it.

For example, Professor Kenneth McNaught, writing in the July Saturday Night under the heading "It's Time to Talk Divorce With Quebec" concludes "that by any criterion acceptable to English-speaking Canada Quebec already seems determined to secede." He manages to find a parallel between our situation today, and that in the United States leading up to the Civil War. He suggests to English Canadians that there would be good reason to

FOR A NEW PACT OF CONFEDERATION 19

listen to the advice of the New York editor Horace Greeley with respect to the South at the time of the Civil War: "Let them go in peace. The only "hope" he sees in the situation is that English Canada might dissuade the French Canadians from "seceding" by presenting them with a bill for all the federally financed facilities in Quebec, as if Quebeckers were to be deterred by such monetary considerations, or as if they had not been paying their full share in the upkeep of the country over this past century and more!

Kenneth McNaught, let it be pointed out, is not a reactionary. He is a left socialist, and a consistent fighter for peace. What is disturbing about his position is not only his failure to understand the legitimacy of the aspirations of the French-Canadian nation, but his apparent willingness to give up the effort to preserve Canada.

* * *

There are two conclusions that need to be emphasized out of this brief review of attitudes towards the -crisis of confederation.
The first is the need for redoubled efforts to convince English Canadians of the justice of the French-Canadian demand for the right to national self-determination. There is only one argument for this, but that argument goes to the heart of democratic principle.

If we recognize the right of other peoples to freely determine their own destiny, if we recognize the right of Canadians to independently decide their future free from the domination of other countries, then we must recognize that right also for the French-Canadian nation.

There is a growing body of Canadian opinion that opposes U.S. intervention in the Dominican Republic and Vietnam. There is wide concern over U.S. economic domination of our own country, and its resulting pressures upon our political policies. There is deep sympathy for the struggles of the Negro people in the United States. Granted, there is a great need to further strengthen, broaden, and unite all these democratic currents in our country, but if all who hold these views now could come to see the problem of French Canada with the same democratic insight, there would already begin to open up a much more hopeful perspective for the preservation of Canada.

Perhaps there is one aspect of English Canadian thinking about

20 THE MARXIST QUARTERLY

democracy which needs deepening. A Quebec lawyer appearing before the Royal Commission made this thought-provoking observation: "When they speak of equality, English Canadians mean equality of individual civil rights, that is, of persons considered individually, while we French Canadians speak of equality we do not mean civil rights at all; we mean collective national rights, we mean the rights of the French-Canadian nation to develop in accordance with its own characteristics."

This point does not detract from the importance of a concern for individual civil rights which is so much a part of the best traditions of English Canadians, but it does emphasize the need for widening the dimensions of thinking about democracy so as to encompass also the collective rights of a people, of a nation.

To make the point in another way: the Negro people in the United States in their great majority have come to see their objective as that of full equality, economically and politically within the American nation. Out of their struggle has come the great slogan, "One Man, One Vote," which has profoundly moved democratic white Americans as well. But this slogan does not answer our Canadian crisis. There is no question of the French Canadian's right to vote; what is in question is the right of the majority in French Canada to determine their own collective destiny, without being subordinated to the English Canadian majority in Canada as a whole.

The second conclusion to be emphasized to the people of both French and English Canada is that it is in our common interests to remain together as two nations within one country.

Here the accent is on "common interests". It is not a principle that our two nations have to stay together, but it will serve the people of both our nations best if we do, and that is a conclusion which the people of each nation will have to draw for themselves on a completely voluntary basis. Otherwise, we will separate.

What are these common interests? Firstly, the greatest threat to the independence and the right to self-determination of both English and French Canada comes from the United States, whose policies of imperialism are indeed the chief threat to the freedom and independence of all peoples everywhere. But so close are we to the United States, and so much are we already under its domination,

FOR A NEW PACT OF CONFEDERATION 21

that it should be self-evident that the preservation of the independence of both our nations demands the united efforts of both. Difficult as the battle is today, it would surely become well nigh hopeless if we were to be divided.

Going beyond this point, it is necessary to speak of the interests of the people, of the working class and the farmers, as opposed to the interests of the great monopolies.

The French Canadian working class, and its democratic allies, share with their counterparts in English Canada a common interest in the advancement of this struggle against the monopolies—both American and Canadian. Objectively, the basis for unity exists in the movement for a new independent foreign policy, which will serve the true interests of Canada and the cause of world peace, in the movement for the all-round strengthening of democracy and democratic institutions in our country, in the fight for great economic reforms, for measures that will put the monopolies under democratic public control and ensure that the working people, and not a handful of rich corporations, will enjoy the benefits of automation and technological progress.

It is out of these struggles of today, we Communists believe, that the road will be opened to the socialist future of our country.

From the interests of the working class, from the interests of all democratic forces, from the interests of socialists, the need stands out to overcome that which divides French and English Canadians, to create the conditions for the fullest development of the united struggle for democracy and progress within one country against the common monopolist enemy. The separation of Quebec would not end the exploitation of the workers of Three Rivers by the great American-owned trust—Canadian Westinghouse—but it would make it more difficult for those workers to join hands with their brothers in Hamilton in common struggle against that monopoly and all the policies it represents. The separation of Quebec would not save Montreal from the threat of nuclear destruction in a war started by the U.S. imperialists, but it would make more difficult the common action of peace loving people in Montreal and Toronto to prevent that war.

Still the question remains, is it really possible to recognize the right of both French and English Canada to self-determination, and

22 THE MARXIST QUARTERLY

at the same time to find the ways by which the two nations can live together within one country?

We will not know unless we try, and if both these goals are recognized as highly desirable, then obviously the effort must be made.

Quite clearly, too, that effort involves the search for new forms of organizing the state structure of Canada, which will mark a distinct break from the British North America Act, which does not recognize Quebec as the state of the French-Canadian nation, but only as a province like the other nine.

What is necessary for this is the negotiation of a new pact of confederation between the two nations, with each nation participating in those negotiations on a completely voluntary basis, and in complete equality.

The suggestion of the Communist Party is for the convening of a democratically elected constituent assembly, composed equally of representatives of French and English Canada, which would have the responsibility of drafting a new constitution for Canada.

It was our further proposal to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism that "The people of French and English Canada should then each adopt or reject the proposed new Constitution in a plebiscite. The constitution could only be endorsed if it was supported by a majority in each of the two nations. If the people of either nation rejected the confederal constitution, it would be voided for both of them by that action."

As the recognition of the need for a new relationship between our two nations develops, and with it the public demand for a new constitution, this proposal for a constituent assembly would appear to be the best rallying ground upon which democratic Canadians could unite.

It is certain to be an issue between the people and the monopolies. For the state-monopoly capitalist Establishment which rules Canada does not want the people brought into the solution of this problem. It is "dangerous" for it to have such a fundamental question as the entire state structure of Canada opened up for wide public debate and action. Far better in their view to try to go on as long as they can on the basis of patchwork compromises, serving their own interests, and reached behind closed doors.

FOR A NEW PACT OF CONFEDERATION 23

Therefore, the fight for a democratic solution to the crisis must be seen as part and parcel of the overall struggle to curb the monopolies and extend democracy in Canada.

It is likely that broad and united action might be stimulated around the proposal for a constituent assembly well before full clarity and agreement could be achieved on the precise terms of a new constitution.

Having said this, it must be said that it is unrealistic to think that the public debate about, and the demand for, a constituent assembly can proceed without a discussion about the possible configuration of the constitution which might emerge therefrom.
This discussion is already quite well advanced in French Canada. Among that significant and sizable section of Quebec opinion which rejects both the present BNA Act, and a separatist solution, the most frequently voiced proposition is that of two associate states.

Of particular interest to Marxists are the set of proposals advanced by the Socialist Party of Quebec, because these proposals are inspired not only by the national aspirations of the people of French Canada, but also by the ideals of socialism. (Cf. p. below.)

These proposals visualize that each of the two states will enjoy sovereign powers up to and including the establishment by each of its own ministries of foreign affairs, of embassies, and consulates abroad, and of representation at the United Nations.

They also propose that "The Canadian Army will be entirely decentralized. The Free State of Quebec will have full jurisdiction over its armed forces, and over the contingents that it will provide to the confederal government within the framework of Canadian defense programs."

There is no proposal for a central Canadian legislature or parliament. Instead, there would be a confederal council composed of delegates chosen in equal numbers by each of the two states. The Confederation represented by the council would have limited and precisely defined powers.

It would have no rights to independently levy taxes, and would depend for its revenues on the allocation of monies by the two member states.

In respect to foreign trade, there would be a common policy

24 THE MARXIST QUARTERLY

established in matters of tariffs and quotas, which in itself would be the subject of periodic negotiations at the Confederal level.

Unsettling as such proposals may be even to English Canadian progressives, let alone others, they should not be dismissed as the work of a few "leftists." In the first place, this type of idea commands an acceptance in Quebec going far beyond the ranks of the present immediate supporters of the Socialist Party. In the second place, these proposals must be taken into account by all sections of the Left in Quebec, including the Communists, if the Left forces in that nation are to forge the meaningful unity which is essential so that the working class and democratic forces will be able to influence the course of developments in a progressive direction.

However, from the standpoint of the interests of the people of French Canada as well as those of English Canada, Communists are compelled to pose certain questions with respect to these associate state propositions.

First, would it not be better if wavs could be found on the basis of mutual agreement to provide for the establishment at the confederal level of a democratically elected parliament, which would have the possibilities of more clearly reflecting the will of the people, than would a council comprised presumably of appointees of the governments of the two nations?

Of course, such a parliament would have to safeguard within its structure two principles: That of representation by population, and that of the equal rights of two nations.

Hence the proposal of the Communist Party in its brief to the Royal Commission for "the establishment on a bi-cameral confederal parliament, one house based upon representation by population as is the present House of Commons, the other house, also elective (unlike the present Senate), but composed of an equal number of representatives from each of the two nations. Each house should have equal authority, and all legislation would require the endorsement of both."

Following from this, and with the safeguard of one chamber equally representative of the two nations, would it not be possible to strive for agreement on the assignment to this confederal parliament, and the government responsible to it, of certain aspects of sovereignty particularly having to do with our relations with the

FOR A NEW PACT OF CONFEDERATION 25

rest of the world? The proposals in the Communist Party's brief to the Royal Commission in this connection were:

The powers of the confederal government would include responsibility for those all-Canadian affairs which concern both Canadas in their relationship with foreign states such as diplomatic representatives and treaties, citizenship and passports, defense and the armed forces, external trade and its regulation. In all likelihood it would be possible for the Constituent Assembly to agree on Confederal administration over other matters of a distinctly all-Canada character such as the postal service, and navigation and shipping. The Confederal parliament would have the power to levy such taxes on incomes and corporate wealth as would be necessary for the discharge of its responsibilities.

The argument for such proposals rests precisely on the point, already made, that the people of Canada living side by side with the U.S. colossus face a complex struggle for the preservation of our independence and for a peaceful world. To conduct this struggle successfully demands the greatest unity of purpose which can best be given direction through a parliament and government acting on behalf of Canada as a whole -- providing again that there are constitutional guarantees that that parliament and government do indeed speak on behalf of both nations.

It is these considerations having to do with the placing of two nations on a completely equal footing, and then with the organization and powers of the confederal government, which are central to the problems of a new constitution. There would be many other complex questions to be resolved including that of the way in which English Canadians would then proceed to organize the government of their own nation. The Communist Party's brief advances some tentative suggestions in this connection, but they require more thought and discussion yet. In any case, these are matters which can only be examined within the context of a solution to the overriding issue of the relationships between the two nations.

Let it be emphasized again that both nations possess the right to self-determination. When English Canadians recognize that right for French Canadians, they are not called upon to give it up for themselves. They are as free to separate from French Canada as French Canada is to separate from English Canada.

Therefore, the argument for a new confederal union based on

26 THE MARXIST QUARTERLY

equality, as well as the arguments stated above for the assignment of certain important features of sovereignty to a confederal parliament, must always rest squarely and solely on the mutual and common interests of the two nations.

It is the whole burden of this article that it is worthwhile to preserve Canada, because that preservation is in the interests of both nations. That being the case, it is essential to make the effort to negotiate the terms of a new constitution between the two nations. Difficult as these negotiations may be, difficult as may be the reconciling of widely differing viewpoints on the structure of a new Canada, those difficulties arc in reality much less formidable than those which would confront both French and English Canada were they to attempt to maintain a separate national existence apart from each other.

One final point, and it is addressed primarily to English Canadians. It is a mistake to view either the proposals advanced by the Socialist Party of Quebec (as well as many others) for an associate state relationship, or the propositions of the Communist Party for a two-chamber parliament performing functions assigned to it by two equal nations, as equivalent to separatism or as steps leading inevitably to separatism.

On the contrary, these kind of propositions are all direded towards preventing separation, by creating the conditions of full equality which arc essential to the continued preservation of Canada as one country.

More than that, once the unequal relationship is removed, once the mutual right to self-determination is established, the foundation will be laid for a far closer cooperation between the peoples of the two nations, on a completely voluntary basis, on all matters having to do with the development of our country, and the advancement of the well-being of its people.

The threat to the survival of Canada, as one country of two nations, does not lie in the search for a new basis of Confederation. It lies in an attempt to cling to the outworn structures of the past with their built-in relations of inequality.



 

---

-- This OCR was prepared by Kathleen Moore in August 2014 for the legal research purposes of Habeas Corpus Canada. --