Social Democrats approached our broad questions about the nature of Canada and Canadian identities by focusing first on our shared values. Participants were quick to recognize the diversity of our country and the difficulty of fixing one single definition of Canadian identity. Canada is partially defined by its resistance to definition and homogeneity, and by its rich, dynamic complexity.
There was consensus among Forum participants that we must recognize Quebecers as a people. At the same time, many participants believed that the Party’s traditional "two nations" approach to Canada is not wholly reflective of historical or contemporary realities. Participants said that although the importance of the two "founding peoples" is undeniable, we cannot ignore the role of Aboriginal Peoples in our country’s history. We must therefore find a way to assure Aboriginal Peoples a greater role in shaping our country’s future. "Two nations" too easily leaves out Aboriginal Peoples, or reduces them to an afterthought - to "Two nations ...plus". Participants also pointed out the diversity within so-called "English Canada", and the impact of immigration from all parts of the world on Canadian society. We must embrace the multiplicity of languages, traditions and cultures that has enriched our country, and the important role of new Canadians on our social, economic and cultural landscape. There is no monolithic "English Canada".
Participants also observed that Canada’s diversity goes beyond the multiplicity of ethnocultural origins of its citizens. Each region of this vast country has its own geographic, social and historical character; each province and territory has its own political and social culture. Yet, we do converge around some shared values: tolerance, compassion, and a sense of collective responsibility that is reflected in social programs and national institutions like Medicare. And as Barbara Jack pointed out, "if anything binds Canadians together, regardless of language or origin, it’s our shared experience of living in this huge northern land. It is not only Quebecers who can relate to Gilles Vignault’s song ‘Mon pays, c’est l’hiver.’"
Social democrats outside of Québec observed that many Quebecers, both sovereigntists and federalists, have a different sense of national identity. Some consider themselves Quebecers and Canadians, some see themselves as Quebecers first and Canadians second, and some only consider themselves Quebecers. Some participants remarked that this strong sense of the collective in Québec society has helped build an equally strong commitment to social democracy -- and this commitment has helped strengthen the social democratic consensus in all regions of the country. As well, participants’ questioning of "two nations" does not detract from their expression of a deep commitment to Canada’s bilingualism, which was frequently cited as a source of pride. Many participants pointed out the diverse network of French-speaking communities which exists in all parts of our country, and expressed a commitment to ensuring that these minorities are adequately recognized and supported.
Participants were also quick to emphasize their concerns about the erosion of the common values that help unite Canadians as a result of the neo-liberal ideology that has been so predominant in recent years. The emphasis on reducing the role and scope of government, the obsession with trade "liberalization", and the idolization of the market have done considerable damage to Canadians’ sense of collective responsibility. Social democrats encouraged the NDP to continue to question this agenda, to put forward an alternative approach, and to assert the role of government in protecting the public good and building a just society.
It is clear that the "two nations" approach was developed at a time when both English and French Canada were equally blind to the importance of Aboriginal Peoples as the first inhabitants of this land. Any attempt to set out a new vision of Canada must address this historic injustice. As well, the "two nations" concept does not acknowledge the important role immigration had, and continues to have, in shaping our country.
Canada is a country of indefinable diversities. There will never be a final description. It can be approached from many different angles: as three nations (Aboriginal Peoples, Québec and English Canada); as six regions; as ten provinces and three territories; and so on. All of these descriptions are accurate and appropriate.
But in one sense, Canada must be seen as dual, and this duality warrants further examination.
Canada is an immigrant society, made up of people who have come to these shores from all parts of the world, from all cultures and civilizations and linguistic origins. This is one of the major sources of the unprecedented range of ideas and talents which have made our society rich and dynamic both culturally and economically.
But at the same time, Canada also is made up of Aboriginal societies with roots going back before the modern waves of immigration. Aboriginal Peoples have a unique place in this country and unique claims upon it.
Immigrant societies receive people from widely different origins, and tend to bring about a convergence around one common public language. In the United States, for example, this is English; in Argentina, it’s Spanish. Only in Canada does one find not one, but two such languages of convergence: French and English. We have two immigrant societies in this country - societies which have been enriched and strengthened by several waves of immigration from all corners of the globe. Canadians are insufficiently aware -- and astonished - at the uniqueness of this achievement.
Aboriginal Peoples are part of this duality in that Aboriginal societies had to choose either English or French as the language by which they interact with public structures and institutions.
This uniquely Canadian duality doesn’t mean that the two languages exercise the same pull of attraction equally throughout the whole country. On the contrary, they each have their areas of geographic strength. The centre, and major component, of the Canada’s French-speaking immigrant society is clearly the province of Québec.
Québec has become the centre of a dynamic, varied, multicutural society which speaks French. In this important respect, Québec is not a province like the others. It is the heart of Canada’s French-speaking population - a diverse population composed of Aboriginal Peoples and people from all parts of the world - and as such has responsibilities and challenges unlike those of any other province.
This didn’t just happen. The fact that Québec is the vibrant, distinct society it is today is primarily the result of its policies since the Quiet Revolution. These were policies frequently based on the values of social democracy. This has become part of the strength of social democracy in Canada as a whole. As social democrats, we rejoice at this, and give our full support. Our challenge is to find the way to reflect, in a meaningful way, the fact that Québec is not a province like the others.
We embrace the fact that Canada lends itself to so many different definitions. This diversity is our greatest strength. In many ways, what unites us as a country is not a shared sense of cultural identity, but shared values and common goals, as manifested in our social programs.
