加拿大聯邦和魁北克主權運動(1976-2003)

Abstract

本論文旨在透過政治菁英的角度，探討聯邦主義和民族主義的關係。魁北克民族主義主要是爭取法語文化的存續，抵拒英語同化的壓力，不僅成為魁人黨的主權運動和魁北克自由黨的聯邦革新之訴求的動力來源，更是加國聯邦與時俱進的主因。由於英語系加拿大和魁北克對於加拿大聯邦和民族持有不同的認知，促得雙方政治菁英利用民族主義，追求心目中的政治秩序和民族認同。在加拿大權利憲章的影響下，渥太華主張個人權利和各省平等應該優於魁北克爭取的特殊地位，所以心傾法律對稱聯邦主義，讓所有省份享有一致的待遇。但是，對於魁北克而言，對稱聯邦主義不僅將魁北克當作一般英語系省份，更可能在限制魁北克政府權力之下，影響法語保護的大業，削弱魁北克的民族認同。因此，魁北克遂以英法兩大民族論，要求採行法律不對稱聯邦主義，尤其應該由加拿大憲法正式承認魁北克的民族地位或構成獨特社會，提供魁北克政府在推展法語文化上所需的特定權力。然而，獨尊魁北克的措施又可能造成二等公民的疑慮，違反權利憲章的精神，從而威脅英語系加拿大的政治認同之核心。 簡言之，魁北克和英語系加拿大之間的爭執可歸納為：第一、政策面：攸關加拿大聯邦的權力分配。加拿大從初期的中央集權傾向，逐漸往地方分權的方向發展。雖然多少能夠滿足魁北克對於自主權的要求，但因為加國聯邦運作太過強調一體適用的原則，使得魁北克認為其獨特性未獲得尊重、甚至還遭到威脅。再者，許多現存的不對稱聯邦之安排乃是事實性質，是剛好其他省份寧願參加聯邦政府主導的國家計畫而魁北克要求自行辦理的情況下，才間接突顯其獨特地位。第二、認同面：魁北克在加拿大的定位以及兩種不同的平等自由觀。在平等價值上，渥太華之所以堅持對稱聯邦主義、而魁北克爭取不對稱的安排，這是源自雙方對於加拿大聯邦的不同認知。前者視之為區域個體所組成，是10個省份之間的政治合約。但是，魁北克普遍認為這是兩大民族的盟約，因此對於聯邦的權力分配有權置啄，便以落實法英民族的平等。另外，在自由觀點上，英語系加拿大持續不願意正式承認魁北克的民族地位之問題，並不單是個人對抗集體的權利，而是兩種不同的自由主義傳統。前者依循程序自由主義，主張人類尊嚴來自個人自主，權利憲章乃是此種精神的體現。魁北克著重在實質自由主義，強調社會的集體面向以及個人尊嚴和社群認同的緊密關聯，因此考量魁北克八成的法語系人口，再加上語言和民族認同密切相關，因此魁北克政府有必要以法語作為唯一官方語言。最終，這兩種自由主義衝突的化解則需要超越多元文化主義的策略，透過深層多元性的概念，承認不同民族的存在，接受不同層次的民族認同，體現多民族民主國家的真諦。

This thesis attempts to examine the relations between federalism and nationalism from the perspectives of political elites in Ottawa and Quebec. Confronted with a perennial siege mentality fostered by the predominance of the English language in Canada, Québécois nationalism is essentially a quest for the survival of the French tongue, which has taken a pro-active form since 1960s in the sovereignty movement led by the Parti Québécois and in the pursuit of renewed federalism championed by the Parti libéral du Québec. In response, the federal government has tried to accommodate Quebec’s needs for linguistic equality and autonomy by adopting bilingualism and a more decentralized form of federalism. But the approach chosen by Ottawa lays too much emphasis on symmetrical federalism to the extent of disregarding Quebec’s distinctiveness. Besides, the constitutionally entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with the aim of ensuring that all Canadian citizens are equal, has further strengthened the idea that the provinces they inhabit should be treated in an identical manner. However, Quebec has long seen itself as a founding nation and is thus entitled to enjoy asymmetrical federal arrangements or at least a special status in Canada. In general, due to different conceptions of the Canadian nation and federation, Ottawa and Quebec have respectively turned to nationalist strategies to fulfil their ideals of political and cultural units. The conflict between these two nation-building projects can be subsumed under two components. Firstly, although an important degree of decentralization has worked to the benefits of Quebec’s nationalist demands, the uniformity principle in terms of power division among provinces is suspected of an intention on the part of the federal government to undermine rather than respect the distinct nature of Quebec. Secondly, the fact that Ottawa refuses to constitutionally recognize Quebec as a nation or a distinct society has less to do with a contradiction between individual versus collective rights, but with different traditions of liberalism. In accordance with procedural liberalism, the English-speaking Canada believes that human dignity can only be achieved when an individual has the freedom to choose what he or she sees best without being held hostage by pre-determined cultural ties. This is not only the goal of the Canadian Charter, but the reason why the language is made a matter of individual rather than a collective right. However, given the precarious position of the French language and its importance in sustaining Quebec national identity, Quebec subscribes to substantive liberalism, viewing communitarian identification a prerequisite for human dignity, which explains the necessity of the French Charter and its unilingual approach. In conclusion, to surmount the conflicting views of liberalism, it is important to allow for national recognition of Quebec and the co-existence of different layers of national identities so as to better reflect the deep diversity within the Canadian multinational society.