by The Right Reverend Andrew S. Hutchison, Bishop of Montreal

This afternoon we turn to issues that have come to have a particular focus in Qu�bec. That we meet in its largest city gives us a wonderful opportunity to be involved in a discussion that has been its dominant reality since 1960. It is a reality that did not seriously impinge on the consciousness of most Canadians until 16 years later. The nationalist movement came to centre stage with the election of the Partie Qu�becois in 1976 as the Government of Qu�bec. The issues have to do primarily with identity and self-understanding. Because they are dynamic issues, however, they quickly turn to our relationship with others - those for whom much of our shared experience of the world is unknown, and to the extent that it is known, is not understood.

In the 1970's I was a young priest in the Diocese of Toronto. The diocesan bishop at the time was Archbishop Lewis Garnsworthy. Giving voice to the curiosity of many of us, he asked whether we shouldn't sit up and take notice, and find out what's really going on in Qu�bec. Father Ir�n�e Beaubien was therefore invited to address a conference of some 300 Anglican clergy in Toronto. He is a Jesuit, and founder of the Centre Canadien d'œcum�nisme here in Montreal. Through the years, the Jesuits had given much intellectual support for the nationalist movement in Qu�bec. I believe his address that day had something to do with my move to Montreal several years later, and my standing before you today. It certainly awakened me to the issue, and with the awakening came a desire to be involved in its resolution. I believe that, for whatever reason, during the course of our journey, many of us discover a dominant theological theme has found its way into our being as a governing principle. For me, that theme has always been reconciliation. It is articulated in St. Paul's words, God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, and has entrusted to us this ministry of reconciliation. In a world so filled with conflict, new and old, that presents a daunting challenge! My wife Lois and I had spent our holidays in Qu�bec during the first years of our marriage - and of the Quiet Revolution. We fell in love with the Province, and it was therefore not difficult to respond when in 1984 I was invited to Montr�al as Dean of Christ Church Cathedral. With Fr. Beaubien's words in mind, and a commitment to reconciliation in my heart, I believed we had a contribution to make. I still do.

The nationalist discussion in Qu�bec casts a long shadow over Canada, because of the size of our landmass and of our population. But that is not to say that issues of identity and self-understanding are unique to Qu�bec. On the contrary, they are issues for many constituencies across Canada, some of whom have reason to believe that their concerns are unjustly overshadowed by the apparent energy and urgency of the discussion in Qu�bec. The theme of this Synod is Lift every voice! - Faisons entendre nos voix! A literal appropriation of that theme on the subject of nation and identity would be impossible. There are simply too many distinct constituencies in the land with concerns around these issues. We have, however, made a selection of a few significant regions and communities and invited representatives from them to give voice to their struggles with issues of identity and nation. We hope others of you will find echoes of your own concerns in their words.

This evening we will hear representative speakers from Qu�bec, from First Nations, from Western Canada, and from Maritime Canada. Each is invited to comment on this theme address, and to speak to the same issue as it arises in their region or constituency. Members of Synod will then be invited to address questions and comments to the panel of speakers. It is important to say that we do not intend a debate on the issue of the aspirations of Qu�bec, or of any group. Rather, we aim at three things.

1.    The exchange of information. We hope that at the end of the day all of us will be better informed.

2.    The realization that we are not alone in our concern about issues of nation and identity. We hope it will become clearer to us that other groups than the one with which we associate have concerns that are similar to our own.

3.    The discovery of the possibility that we might be helpful to one another. We hope we could begin to imagine ways in which we could assist one another in the realization of our legitimate aspirations.

More will be said this evening when the panel is introduced. I am struck by the subtle distinction between the English and the French renderings of our Synod theme. The French version literally translated means Let's make our voices heard! I hope that in the spirit of this theme we will make the effort to listen, and to hear what is being said. Issues of identity are what the French language calls questions du coeur. It is therefore important that we listen with the heart, and not simply with the intellect.

Three Propositions

Let me begin with a few basic propositions. First, I do not believe that the Church has a mandate from Scripture or tradition to advocate one form of government over another. How we choose to organize ourselves for our collective security and well being is a political question, that must be settled by voters at the ballot box - be they Christian or not. We do, on the other hand, have a mandate both from the Gospel and by virtue of our baptism to strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being. It is my view, therefore, that the Church has no business aligning itself with the Yes or the No side of a referendum on such issues. It must, however, be vigilant in safeguarding the fundamental rights and well being of citizens. It is not acceptable to achieve a political agenda at the cost of the just and core values of a society. I have been a bishop since 1990, and Mr. Bouchard is the fourth Premier of Qu�bec to come to office in that short time. I have had the opportunity to meet with each one of them, and have made these views clear to each of them, as well as to the public, through the media, and to the Church. Obviously, they are views which find more appreciation in the first groups than in the Church. For despite our inclusion of a variety of cultures and languages, the Diocese is overwhelmingly English-speaking. Its members tend to look to the Church for support and leadership in issues that affect them deeply. It is therefore not comfortable for them, or for me, that I have taken this position. What I believe personally, however, - and believe passionately - is a different matter, but I dare not raise those views as a Church leader. This is a line that my colleague, Cardinal Turcotte, crossed when he voiced objection to the Federal Government challenging the legality of a unilateral declaration of independence following a provincial referendum. While there is nothing wrong with him holding that position - which was supported by both sides of the National Assembly of Qu�bec - it was not thought appropriate for him to declare that as a Church leader. I have spoken out both publicly and privately to the Premier on the question of native claims for self-determination. There is an obvious injustice when European immigrants in the South of Qu�bec claim the right to determine the citizenship of aboriginal peoples who have been on the land for perhaps 5,000 or 6,000 years. I have spoken in support of native voices on the James Bay development and on the scandalous affront to the Jewish community when Passover foods were removed from stores just before the holiday because as imported goods they lacked French language packaging. These are matters that for me touch our baptismal commitment. Political organization, on the other hand, does not in such an obvious way

My second proposition is that as Canadians, we have much more in common from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island than we realize, and that it comprehends a very wide spectrum of culture and tradition. The floods in the Saguenay, then more recently in Manitoba, and the ice storm and its consequences in Ontario, Qu�bec and New Brunswick earlier this year demonstrated that wonderfully. The first response I had to the ice storm came from the Diocese of Athabaska, quickly followed by generous support from British Columbia and Newfoundland. Very quickly we heard from every part of the country. All political, geographic and cultural barriers seemed to be completely irrelevant, and here in Qu�bec, total strangers became fast friends and politicians at every level exercised sound, informed and utterly non-partisan leadership. That is the human way for us to respond to a serious threat to any of us, and as Canadians we do it wonderfully. It is a reflection of a Canadian sensibility that pervades foreign and national policy and the life of communities of every size across the land. Whether to account for it by history, geography or climate, who knows? It remains true, however, that among the countries of the world Canadians have earned a reputation for being a tolerant, caring, peaceful and responsible society, and that those are virtues that transcend distinctions of language and regional history.

My third proposition is that Canada is a wonderful experiment - a work in progress, and that is something I want to celebrate, not denigrate. It is what makes us almost unique in a world of nation states. Whereas that is a matter of embarrassment for some Canadians who would like us to be a country like other countries, it is in fact what distinguishes us and makes us who we are. We are constantly in flux, and in processes of negotiation among the various constituencies that shares this territory, and that is, I believe, as it should be. There are those who are tired of constitutional discussions. Yet constant discussion and negotiation is simply one of the features of an open and dynamic society that recognizes the need for change. "Let's settle things once and for all" is not a formula for openness to the evolving aspirations of all our citizens. It is my belief that this last proposition is what gives us hope for a positive evolution of our life together on this continent. The unitary state with strong central government necessarily seeks conformity that is less than sensitive to regional and cultural needs, and inevitably it makes its impress on the national conscience and the consciences of citizens. It is important to remember that what we consider to be the most civilized and developed nations in the world are products of oppression, coercion, conflict and violence on a massive scale. France, Germany, Great Britain and the United States have all achieved their present status at the cost of the lives of millions of their own dissenting citizens. Those who would have Canada become more like most of its trading partners do well to revisit the histories of those they seek to emulate. Canada distinguishes itself from its neighbours in the world community of nations by its willingness to work with complexity within its borders. Precisely because of that, we live with an ethic of self-criticism and the need to be open to negotiation for change. Two years ago at the St. Patrick's Day lunch here in Montreal Jean Charest said, "Canada is a country whose only critics are within its own borders." While Jessie Helms would be a notable exception, I believe the statement is largely true - and that is as it should be. That self-criticism sometimes descends into self-deprecation, and that it is often directed without restraint at those we elect to public office is not to our credit. It does not, however, obviate the value of responsible self-criticism, and the openness to change that goes with it.


The situation in Qu�bec

Having set out these three propositions let me now turn to Qu�bec, and some of the more controversial - if not dangerous - observations of this address. There is a wide spread myth about two solitudes in Canada - one French and one English. It is a myth that does not take into account societies that have evolved clear across this land over thousands of years prior to European immigration. It takes no notice of immigration from Asia, Africa, Central and South America, Eastern European countries, or for that matter any countries other than France and Great Britain. It is a myth that has been exploited in many ways by politicians over the centuries, and one that has effectively re-enforced a victim mentality among French Qu�becois. But the victim mentality itself is older than the myth.

The French arrived on this soil as subjects of the French King to find themselves under the rule of an authoritarian colonial Governor, and a zealous and powerful Church. 150 years later the British arrived with a contingent of German mercenaries and captured Qu�bec and then Montr�al. Now the colonists found themselves under the rule of British institutions and governance they did not easily understand. The Church became even more important in the defence of the interests of the French colonists. It was the power that stood between them and a government whose language; religion and culture were alien to them. The victim mentality and the low self-esteem that goes with it were given new ground in which to grow. It also left the door open to exploitation, and there was no shortage of political aspirants to grasp the opportunity. Without tracing the history of Qu�bec, I am trying to make the point that historical process for French Qu�becers has allowed them, through most of that history, to understand their lot as being someone else's fault - the French King, the Governor, the British, the Church, the Government of the day in Qu�bec or Ottawa. It set the stage for the explosion of 1960.


The Quiet Revolution

Certainly there were heroic voices and movements for self-realisation in earlier years, and more frequently in this century. It was the death of Maurice Duplessis, however, that opened the floodgates for change and began the Quiet Revolution. At last, under the Liberal government of Jean Lesage and its remarkable Minister of Natural Resources, Ren� L�vesque, Qu�becers decided it was time to take the reigns of their own destiny. He invoked a slogan first popularised by a 19th Century writer and civil servant, Errol Bouchette, who advocated economic autonomy for Qu�bec and suggested the nationalisation of hydro-electric resources - "Soyons ma�tres chez nous!" From a certain point of view, it was the birth of responsible liberal democracy in Qu�bec, - a determination to be masters of our own destiny. No longer would we be dependants. We would shape our own institutions for our own best interests, beginning with effective and affordable hydro-electric power, universal medical care and access to free education for all. A new self-image and self-understanding was in the making, and did not allow for the old dependencies. Mr. L�vesque was to say of Hydro-Qu�bec,

"Hydro Qu�bec has rapidly become a kind of pioneer in social change as far as Qu�bec is concerned, in that it belongs to the whole population." 1

In an important address to the Canadian Club in Montreal, the Minister described the challenge before the new Liberal government, and said in part.

"Our job is to see that the majority receives what is rightfully theirs, something they have never had in the past (which is partly their own fault), and to see that they and their children have a better future." 2

Comprehensive planning for the future began in earnest under L�vesque in 1963. The aim was to build a vision in which government would take the lead, and enlist the collaboration of private enterprise in realising its objectives --a so-called social contract. Here is his own description of the concept.

"Whatever proportions are finally decided on in preparing this recipe for economic planning, there are at least two ingredients whose inclusion is necessary if such a plan is not to become a kind of national fraud: (1) the economy itself must be a means of achieving the objective of every civilised society, namely, the enhancement of man's dignity through labour sufficiently well paid to guarantee the basic well-being everyone has a right to expect; (2) the constraints of planning must not be simply imposed from the top but consented to by the majority so that they are the result of the most representative democratic participation in the formulation and implementation of society's goals." 3

In 1963, L�vesque proclaimed in Toronto his views on the federation.

"To be honestly a Canadian, I shouldn't have to feel like a native leaving his reservation every time I leave Qu�bec. Outside Qu�bec, I don't find two great cultures. I feel like a foreigner. First and foremost, I am a Qu�becois, and second - with a rather growing sense of doubt - a Canadian." 4

That such comments were attracting increasing media attention caused one of this evening's speakers - the Hon. Claude Ryan, then Publisher of Le Devoir to say:

"Mr. L�vesque has not yet made the transition from acting on impulse to sober thought. The man has become too important, too full of promises, to remain indefinitely standing in the doorway threatening to proclaim his anger to the outside world if he is not given a hearing in the house." 5

The Liberal Party moved forward with its energetic programme for reform including the creation of a Qu�bec Ministry of Education in 1964 with the goal of free education for everyone at all levels, and the Qu�bec Pension Plan in 1965. The leader, Mr. Lesage, did not seem to share the passion for democracy of his lieutenants, drawing the following remarks from Mr. Ryan in Le Devoir:

"What is unpleasant about Mr. Lesage's manner is the egotistical way he lays claim to a monopoly on good sense, realism and responsibility." 6

A Qu�bec Cabinet shuffle in October 1965 moved Mr. L�vesque to the Ministry of Family and Social Services, but it was not enough to save the party from an electoral defeat nine months later. It did, however, give him another opportunity to articulate his vision. In 1966 he said,

"The awakened French Canada is not against any group or its rights, only against the entrenched privileges of a dominant minority. Qu�bec's awakening is a positive phenomenon that is not only tolerant but deeply respectful of minority rights. Not privileges, but rights." 7

It was the Liberal Convention of October 1967 that brought to a head the growing distance between the moderates and Mr. L�vesque, who resigned from the party during the convention when it became clear that his Sovereignty-Association was headed for defeat. I close this important overview of developments in Qu�bec during the 1960's with a 1963 statement of this remarkable popular leader of Qu�bec nationalism on his view of what a political party should be.

"Basically, I think it can be summed up in three words: democratic, progressive, Qu�becois. "Democratic" first of all means that vested interests and cliques are excluded. The party must keep its doors wide open and welcome all those willing to support its programme as well as those who value their freedom of expression and their right not to agree at all times on all questions. A democratic party is not a collection of automatons. It is a meeting ground for free citizens who will consent to a minimum amount of discipline necessary in any organisation that really wants to accomplish something, rather than simply contenting itself with being a directionless forum. A democratic party is also one that belongs to its members and whose financing is entirely, with no hidden qualifications or mysteries, in their hands. "Progressive" is an adjective that applies to a party which is not afraid of change. Now more than ever we must accept social and economic change as normal and healthy. A progressive party not only accepts such change but must also have the courage to propose changes which seem desirable and to get them quietly under way as soon as it is in power. And it must continue to do so with the same thoughtful boldness as long as it is in power, or else it will sooner or later become a conservative party, which is equally respectable, but not the same thing at all! "Qu�becois," for me, means first of all that we must accept straight off the equality of all Qu�bec citizens in the eyes of every institution and the law, and be ready to defend this principle whenever necessary, regardless of cultural, religious or even political affiliations. Every Qu�becois is and must remain a full-fledged citizen. This is an absolutely essential idea, and one that we must never forget, especially during troubled times such as we are now experiencing. Furthermore, "Qu�bec" must signify French Canada in a collective sense. We are the Qu�bec nation, and we comprise 80% of the province's population. Others may feel at home almost anywhere, but we will never have another secure homeland to call our own except Qu�bec. A Qu�bec party must always be thinking of this, must work tirelessly for the national interests of French Canadians and every day, in every field, must strive to bring us closer to the time when we will be, once and for all, ma�tres chez nous.8

While Mr. L�vesque developed this view as a Minister of the Liberal Government of Qu�bec, it can be argued that his view was not radically changed when his P.Q. Government came to power in 1976.


The other group in the English-French myth had a quite different historical evolution. They arrived on these shores bringing with them a tradition of liberal democratic institutions and governance reaching back to the time of Charles I, including a Church with recent experience of the Reformation. The ties of dependency spanning the Atlantic were conduits of confidence and pride in an expanding British Empire, and gave no signals of victimisation to the colonists. We could chase these two historical lines at length, but suffice it to say that the early development of the French reality and the British reality in this land were radically different, and accounts in part for what has happened here in very recent times. It also accounts for why we understand these present realities so very differently. If it is true that much of Qu�bec understands itself as having come into its own as a responsible democratic society in 1960, then the excitement and enthusiasm around that makes more sense. At the same time, it must be said that what Qu�bec has achieved in those 38 years is phenomenal.

I believe that the development of whole societies is a reflection of our own individual development. We begin in dependency, move from that to independence, and when we reach maturity we manage to achieve a healthy inter-dependence. As surely as this is an unavoidable process for individuals, I believe it is a necessary process for whole societies. It is a process that Qu�bec must and will go through. The question it begs for us, and for the rest of Canada is, "How do we, and the rest of Canada, design the political apparatus that will allow that process to happen, with the least possible damage to our future prospects on this continent for all concerned?"

Now that is a question that has serious echoes within the Anglican Church of Canada. Here in this Synod are bishops, clergy and laity who have signed the Native Covenant that raises the same question for us. "How do native Canadian Anglicans affirm and celebrate their identity, and take the reigns of self-determination for their own future and not damage our future prospects for the evolving communion we share in the Anglican Church?" It is a question that is echoed in First Nations across the land, as they address issues of identity and self-determination with their related issues of land claims. Strong central organisation and governance does not always respond well and effectively to regional concerns. So there are other constituencies in Canada for whom the issue is not how to find independence, but rather how to be included in the benefits of the larger federation and taken seriously as a partner.


An Anglican Approach to Partnership

The Anglican Church of Canada has contributed much to the world-wide Anglican Communion - not least of which is our model of synodical government. One of our most distinctive contributions has been that of partnership. It is a principle that has governed our mission and our relationships since 1963, and moves in the direction of mutual responsibility and inter-dependence. According to that principle, we come along side others as an expression of solidarity. We listen to their stories and to their articulation of their aspirations and their needs. We do not presume to have right answers for them, but seek to understand. Then we identify resources that may be helpful in addressing those needs. From these elements we build with them a shared vision, and commit ourselves to the realisation of the vision as partners. It is a working out of the baptismal commitment to strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being. I believe that the partnership principle that has become so respected internationally, and in the affairs of our Church in Canada, could have a wider application within our land, and serve us well for the future. Partnership, however, requires commitment, and the price for pulling back from our commitments, or failing to follow through on them can be very high. Canada itself is, after all a partnership of many peoples and regional interests all with reasonable and legitimate aspirations yet to be realised. And across all those differences there is much more that defines us as a people - writ large - than language, culture, borders and political apparatus.


The Church in Qu�bec

The Anglican Church in Qu�bec, and specifically in Montreal, arrived in 1760. From its earliest days it found itself in partnership. The first Anglican Rector of Montreal was David Chabrand Delisle who began services in the chapel of the R�collect Fathers, who lent it to him for an hour each Sunday. He was French-speaking. His English-speaking parishioners begged Bishop Inglis to send them an English priest, because they could not understand his sermons. Delisle himself wrote home to the missionary society that most of the worshippers were in fact Presbyterians who had no Minister of their own. And 40 German-speaking parishioners petitioned the Bishop to send them a German- speaking pastor. It is a wonderful comment on Anglican inclusiveness that services were held in German, English and French in a borrowed Roman Catholic chapel for the benefit of people of such an assortment of religious backgrounds. The evolution of Montreal, however, was such that increasingly Anglicans became identified as l'�glise anglaise. And, it must be said, it was content to accept that reality for many years. It is only in recent times that the partnership principle has taken on new life. We paid an institutional price for that complacency. The affirmation of the French reality in the 1960's and 70's and the legislation that followed it perceived by the English as so offensive, resulted in a massive exodus of English-speaking Qu�becers from the Province. Over a 30-year period, the Anglican Church in Montreal lost nearly 75% of its membership, and is still in the throes of redefining itself for the new reality.

Here again, however, it is the partnership principle that serves us well. The need for speaking and understanding the French language is now taken for granted among us, and all clergy are required to be functionally bilingual. We collaborate with governments at local and provincial level in many areas. As small as we are, the Diocese of Montreal is the largest single of sponsor of refugees into Qu�bec. Recently we entertained all those we had sponsored during the previous 12 months for dinner at Fulford Hall. The room was filled with new arrivals from Afghanistan, Rwanda, Burundi, Pakistan, the Sudan and many other parts of the world. The Qu�bec Minister, the Honorable Andr� Boisclair, was with us, and wonders how we do it. An initiative was taken by the Government of Qu�bec to provide $60 million for the restoration of historic buildings in Qu�bec. The Minister, the Honorable Louise Beaudoin, chose to launch the programme from our Cathedral Church, and our Dean, the Very Rev. Michael Pitts is Treasurer of the Qu�bec Heritage Foundation, which administers the fund. We provide input and expertise beyond what our numbers would warrant to other partnerships in education, health care, prison chaplaincy, and community social programmes.

The North American Deans Association met in Montreal 10 years ago. To the conference I invited the Honorable Marc Lalonde, a former federal minister who had held most of the senior cabinet posts, and the Honorable Pierre Marc Johnson, leader of the Partie Qu�becois, who had just finished a very short term as Premier following the death of Ren� L�vesque. Obviously, they presented alternative views of the political future of Qu�bec and led a lively discussion on the subject. Mr. Johnson ended his remarks by saying, "The challenge of Qu�bec trying to define itself in North America is not unlike the challenge of the Anglican Church trying to define itself in Qu�bec". He had a point, and it helped me realise that identity issues are not unique to Qu�bec. We are in an era of globalization that carries the potential of decisions made by a few affecting more of us than ever. Issues of identity, self-understanding and self-determination are therefore of increasing importance to most of us. At the same time, there is a growing understanding of the connectedness of everything in Creation. Therefore, rising above immediate self-interest in the name of a long-term benefit for our collective well-being is becoming an attractive virtue.


A Concluding note

As Anglican Christians we are a people who know something about inclusiveness, about honouring the aspirations of a wide variety of cultures, histories and languages within a single Communion. As a Church of the Reformation, we have no great affection for centralized power and authority, or for dogmatic formulas that are unresponsive to the movement of the Spirit in the Body of the Church. We are committed to strive for justice, and to respect the dignity of every human being. And in this Synod we are resolved to Lift every voice. If that does not qualify us to produce the political answers to difficult questions, it does qualify us to make a helpful contribution to the context in which those questions are raised, and to values that bear on satisfactory outcomes. Here then, is one voice from within our Church in Qu�bec. I hope in some small measure it sets the context for a discussion this evening that will increase understanding and goodwill among us, and move us closer to the kingdom of God's justice and peace in this land, and throughout the earth.


Notes:

1. Ren� L�vesque, Jean Provencher, p. 174. Translated by David Ellis, Paper Jacks Ltd., 1975
2. Address to the Canadian Club, Montr�al, 9 April 1962, p.8
3. Address to convention of Electricity Cooperatives, 28 January, 1963
4. Toronto Star, 1 June, 1963
5. Le Devoir, 29 June, 1963
6. Le Devoir, 14 June, 1965
7. Montreal Star, 28 February, 1966
8. Point de Mire, 1 November 1963, p.5 (Laurier Riding Liberal Association Publication)