Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is illegal under international law and could
set a tragic precedent for other nations with authoritarian leaders like
Putin to follow. Canada’s response has been to transport a plane load of
guns to Ukraine. We can do better.
It is true that for any believer in the rule of law the situation looks apocalyptic. Russian troops are pouring into Ukraine by the thousands, well over two million Ukrainian civilians have fled to neighbouring countries, and events are in a state of a downward spiral. But is there cause for hope for lasting peace? This commentary suggests there is, and that the start of the answer is found in how Canada found a way to accommodate similar types of nationalistic challenges within its borders; specifically with its construction of a constitution that protects its distinct and significant French speaking citizens in Quebec.
This is not to say that Ukraine has necessarily to adopt our federal system. But by giving Ukraine’s Russian speaking areas local autonomy, such as Quebec currently enjoys, Ukraine would achieve two important goals. The first would be to bring the secessionist regions of Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk back under Ukrainian jurisdiction. The second would be to end the war by guaranteeing Russian speakers linguistic and cultural protections.
What then are some of the laws protecting the rights of Quebec’s French speaking minority? The first, and by far the most important, are linguistic guarantees. For example, Quebec passed Bill 101 in 1977 making French Quebec’s official language. This law not only gave francophones the right to work in French, but also encouraged anglophones living and working in Quebec to learn French. Local parliaments in Russian speaking areas of Ukraine could do the same. This would, in effect, keep Ukrainian nationalists from destroying Ukraine’s Russian speaking identity.
Other legal guarantees abound. Quebec, like every other province, has jurisdiction over education, administration of hospitals, natural resources, agriculture, land use, local waterways, and the creation and management of towns and cities. Similar jurisdiction could be passed to parliaments in Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk.
But more importantly, Quebec has its own legal system. Known as Civil Law and based on the Civil Code of Quebec, this legal system regulates private affairs such as contracts and property rights. Thus unlike the rest of Canada, where the Common Law applies, Quebec was given the right to keep its own legal system upon entering Confederation in 1867.
In sum, these protections, which every Canadian province enjoys, mean that the lives of most Canadians are regulated primarily by provincial laws. The Federal government, in contrast, has jurisdiction over matters such as banking, intellectual property, criminal law, immigration, citizenship, income tax, and customs and borders.
This is not to say, however, that a unitary state like Ukraine should adopt Canada’s division of powers word per word. But it is a good starting point. Ukraine is a big country with twenty-seven regions. It could then, like other large countries, choose to adopt a federal system. Or it could, given the current situation, keep its present system while providing for local autonomy in the break away regions.
This takes us back to the current crisis in Ukraine. The two main antagonists, Russia and Ukraine, both have leaders with law degrees. And while neither Vladimir Putin nor Volodymyr Zelensky practiced law, both leaders at one point studied constitutional law. This is where Canada can help find a solution to the current crisis. Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Melanie Joly, is also trained as a lawyer. Perhaps Canada’s role should be to encourage Putin and Zelensky to look at the constitutional guarantees enjoyed by Quebec’s French speakers, and to urge them to amend Ukraine’s constitution to provide similar guarantees for Ukraine’s Russian speaking minority.
What I am suggesting is an example of what the American scholar, Joseph Nye, calls soft power. The current policy of imposing severe economic sanctions on Russia, while arming the Ukrainian army and boasting NATO’s presence in Europe, should no doubt continue. This is an example of hard power. But destroying the Russian economy and fighting Putin’s army in Europe will not be enough to avoid a human tragedy of epic proportion. In the end, both sides will eventually be forced to the bargaining table, hopefully sooner than later, and Canada’s unique contribution can be pivotal in finding a long term solution that is fair to both sides.
Editor’s Note: A member of the Quebec Bar since 1991, Philip Petraglia is a Canadian freelance legal researcher and editor based in Canada. The views expressed are strictly his own.
