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
JOURNAL12 (1979), 676.

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 Canadianconstitutionalexperimentappearsto be caughtbetweenuniversalismandparticularism.Even in Canadaitself, many scholarseitherenvisage the evolution of Canadianfederalisminto a unitarystate,or predictits disintegration in responseto particularistic
demandsfor local autonomy.
Canadianshave available to them, however, an understandingof
federalismthat mediates the destructivedemandsof universalismand
particularism.To recapturethatunderstandingof Canadianfederalism,
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
Federalismis almost neverequatedwith fraternityor describedas a way
of life. It is morecommonlydepicted,in Canadaand elsewhere,as a political expedient,or as a constitutionalarrangement,or as a sociological
characteristicof some societies.4In fact, Canadianfederalismhas even
been describedas an affairof governments,in which the most important
elites. So long as
issues areresolvedby judicial,politicalandbureaucratic
Canadianfederalismwas understoodin this way, it could be regardedas a
formof politicalandconstitutionalpragmatismdevoid of moralprinciple
and preconception.However, with the adoptionof the Charterin 1982
and the failureof the Meech LakeConstitutionalAccordin 1990 andthe
CharlottetownConsensus Reporton the Constitutionin 1992, such an
imageof federalismhas becomeincreasinglyunrealistic.
Canadianfederalism,as Alan Cairnshas observed,is no longer an
affair of governments;it now includes citizens and groups who have
acquireda new constitutionalstatus throughthe Charter.5Not only do
See, for example, William Livingston, Federalism and Constitutional Change
(Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1956), 1-15.
5 Alan Cairns, Disruptions: ConstitutionalStruggles,from the Charter to Meech
Lake,ed. by Douglas E. Williams (Toronto:McClellandand Stewart, 1991), 108.

Abstract. Federalismis commonly described,in Canadaand elsewhere, as a political

expedient, or a constitutionalarrangement,or a sociological characteristicof some societies. 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 arrangementconstitutionnel,ou encore comme
une caract6ristiquesociologique 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
Charterwas 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 Que6

See 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.

222

SAMUEL V. LASELVA

bec's consent and would fuel Quebec nationalism;because it did nothing to satisfy the demandsfor intrastatefederalismor to alleviate western alienation;because it spoke of rights as the common possession of
Canadians,yet it encouragedindividuals and groups to assert special
claims and defendparticularinterests.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."1Jealous 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 Charterhas also broughtaboutthe demise of executive federalism,at least with respectto constitutionalmatters.
The Charterhas produceda crisis of federalismprecisely because
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.
Moreover,federalismby elites is more than a political arrangement;it
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.13But there may be more to federalismthan
elite accommodationand the two solitudes. The Chartermay 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 Writingof 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.17Macdonald 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
to createa society in theirown image.21 FrenchCanadianshave a home,
and it is Quebec.22Their relationshipswith the rest of Canadaare instrumental.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
Russell, ed., Nationalismin Canada (Toronto:McGrawHill, 1966), 56-60.

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
antipathyto standardizationwith the cultivationof individual,national
and racial peculiarities.26The currentcrisis of Canadianfederalismis,
in one of its dimensions, little more than an instance of the crisis that
has repeatedlyplaguedphilosophicalthought,a crisis thathas occurred
wheneveruniversalismandparticularismhave 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,
23

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 JOURNAL20 (1987), 3.
26 A. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press,
1964), 292.

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
sense to abandonthe destructiveFrench-Canadiannationalismof his
youth and become in his matureyears a liberal constitutionalistand a
In the otheraccount,Cartieris viewed
greatCanadiannation-builder.28
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 theSubjectof the Confederation
31 Parliamentary
of theBritishNorth
AmericanProvinces(Quebec:Hunter,Rose, 1865),53-62. Henceforthcited as
Debates.
Confederation
32 D. V. Smiley, TheFederal Conditionin Canada (Toronto:McGraw-HillRyerson,

1987),143.
33 DonaldV. Smiley,TheCanadianPoliticalNationality(Toronto:
Methuen,1967),
128.
34 Donald Smiley, "Reflections on CulturalNationhoodand Political Communityin
Canada," in K. Cartyand P. Ward,eds., Entering the Eighties: Canada in Crisis
(Toronto:OxfordUniversityPress, 1980), 28.
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.39Having 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
unacceptableif it created an all-inclusive Canadiannationalism.40If
Confederationwas 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 ConfederationDebates, 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
underthe BritishCrown."43For Cartier,Canadawas to be a countryin
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
By joining in Confederation,FrenchandEnglishagreedboth to live
apartandto live together.Canadawould standfor a new kindof nationality anda new kindof fraternity.Cartierdid nothimselfuse the wordfraternity,yet his discussionof a Canadianpoliticalnationalityappearsto presupposeit, at least in some measure.Of course,the Canadianpoliticalnationalitycould be only a partialfraternity;it could not requireintense
emotionalbondsbetweenFrenchandEnglishor demanda completeidentity of sentimentsand interests.Whatthe Canadianfraternitydid suppose
was thatpeoples with distinctiveways of life could possess good will towardseach other,participatein commonendeavours,develop and sustain
common allegiancesand common sentiments,and operatepoliticalinstitutionsfor the welfare of all. Cartierspoke of such things,but left them
nameless. There is, however, a traditionof Canadianfederalism-to
which Cartierappearsto belong-that explicitlyconnectsfederalismand
fraternity."The fatherland,for us," wroteHenriBourassa,"is the whole
of Canada,thatis a federationof distinctculturesandprovinces."French
andEnglishareseparatedby languageandreligion,Bourassaadded,"but
unitedin a sense of brotherhood."45
If Cartier'spolitical nationalityas well as a traditionof Canadian
federalistthoughtcontainwithin them an appealto fraternity,then federalistscan 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 ConfederationDebates, 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
like religion.47Nationalistsembracea primordialidea of fraternity,attach 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.
Thereis no greaterfraternitythanthe brotherhoodand sisterhoodof all
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 particulargroupof people?"49
Nationalistswant to confine fraternity;federalistswant to expand
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-Canadianpatriotismmust 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-Canadiannationality,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
federalistscan envisage the disappearanceof Canada.51Federaliststurn
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.
E. J. Hobsbawn,"Fraternity,"New Society 3 (1975), 472.
See W. W. Tarn,"Alexanderthe Greatand the Unity of Mankind," Proceedings
of the BritishAcademy 19 (1933), 137, 146. Tarndiscusses a type of fraternitythat
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,Fraternityand Ethnicity," in his EthnicDilemmas 1964-1982 (Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press, 1983), 228-29.
49 Caroline McCulloch, "The Problem of Fellowship in CommunitarianTheory,"
Political Studies32 (1984), 447.
50 Henri Bourassa, "French-CanadianPatriotism," 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

231

Federalism as a Way of Life

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
JOURNAL14 (1981), 775.

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 fraternityhas 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."60Federalistsare not universalists, precisely because they value local communities and local
cultures. But federalists are not particularistseither. The imaginative
feat of federalismis thatit uses the complex concept of fraternityto accommodateboth the universalandthe particularwithin 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.61But Rikerwas writing as a political theoristand behaviouralpolitical 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
fraternallyat all. Their treatmenthas been paternalistic,and their demandfor native self-governmentwithin Canadacan be interpretedas 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 particularismor universalism.62To embraceparticularismor universalism,however, is to reject the Canadianexperiment
andto give up a way of life.
There are, of course, ways of thinkingaboutfederalismthatdo not
give prominenceto fraternity.Federalismcan be regardedas a political
and economic expedient with almost no moral content. When federalism is viewed in this way, it is an institutionalarrangementthatdivides
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?"ComparativePolitics 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 ArendLijpharthas 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 Confederationand to Cartier'sidea of a Canadianpolitical nationality.Henri Bourassacontributedto 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,Trudeauadded,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
nationality."65There is a traditionof Canadianfederalistthought that
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.