A misunderstanding haunts the dictionary of quotations. In the official version, the head of American diplomacy Henry Kissinger asked Mao’s right-hand man, Zhou Enlai, in 1972 if the French Revolution of 1789 had influenced the Chinese Revolution of 1949. “It’s too early to tell” , replied the latter, which was always interpreted as a reflection on the long time of history.
But isn’t it one of those answers which, under the guise of depth and wisdom, have only the substance of the wind? It took 40 years before the American interpreter present at the exchange revealed that the Chinese leader was not talking about the French Revolution, but about the May 68 revolt, which had taken place a few years earlier. In this corrected version, Zhou Enlai indicates rather, in all banality, that he has not the slightest idea of what these events could change in China, which was emerging from a cultural revolution of a magnitude a thousand times greater than what France had known.
Misunderstanding and long time are tools that can also be applied to a famous quote by Pierre Elliott Trudeau on the Constitution, whose 40th anniversary is being celebrated these days.
To the journalist Madeleine Poulin who asked the father of this new founding text how long he thought his Constitution, which was so difficult to modify, would last, he replied: “A thousand years. Literate, Trudeau knew that he was taking up a Nazi reference, whose new order was to be spread over this period. But you have to know Trudeau’s cynicism, his penchant for provocation, and place his answer in the context of a scathing interview where he did not hide his exasperation with the questions asked and the journalist’s manifest opposition to his great work. . Its “thousand years” then sound like a challenge, a punch struck at its opponents. You could also say a curse.
In 2022, since there are still 960 to go before the end of the announced millennium, it is, as the other said, “too early to say” if the 1982 Constitution will hold up and if the choice made by Trudeau at the time of the signature will prove him right.
Because, even beyond the isolation of Quebec, Trudeau has decided to leave an extremely precious asset on the table: ensuring that the new Constitution of Canada bears the signature of the leader of the independence movement, René Lévesque, and thus voted by a majority in the National Assembly, including therefore by the deputies of the independence party.
It would have been enough for him, Trudeau, and his only two provincial allies to sign the agreement initialed by Lévesque and seven other provinces. It did not contain the Charter of Rights, which would give more power to judges and mark out Quebec’s right to manage the language of its education. It allowed Quebec to opt out of any new federal program with full compensation. But, in exchange, didn’t Trudeau obtain the surrender of the independence movement? Recognition that a good understanding was possible? And nothing then prevented Trudeau from multiplying federal spending in Quebec through his spending power, in no way constrained by the text of the provinces.
Trudeau’s decision to impose his views was not without consequences. The dismissal by Quebecers of the majority of federal Liberal deputies in the following election and then two failed attempts to repair led the country to less than 1% of the rupture, in 1995 – all events caused by the Trudeauist choice. In a word, he came within a hair’s breadth of killing the country he had wanted to rebuild.
But once these trials are over, especially the ” near death experience » of 1995, according to the words of the scribes of the time, the long time does its work. Trudeau’s intention was to make Quebec a province like the others, in law, yes, immediately, but also in minds, over time.
The Léger pollster, in 2019, measured the evolution since 1990 of this notion among Quebecers. In 1990, a year strong in national sentiment, only 21% adhered to the thesis of a Quebec province like the others. In 2003, they were 33%. In 2019, 44%. Those who choose independence or a more autonomous status for Quebec were still in the majority, at 66%, in 2019. But the decline is clear.
The Trudeauist spirit is even more present among 18-30 year olds, polled by Ipsos for The Press in 2018, then last March. The preference for the current provincial status has thus increased in four years from 37 to 46%, opponents of the status quo – therefore supporters of independence or more autonomy – have gone from majority in 2018 (52%) to minority today (36%).
This means that the Trudeauization of minds is at work, including during the first term of the CAQ government, including among young people where Québec solidaire claims to promote sovereignty. Neither the debates around the law on the secularism of the state nor those around the bill on the language are enough to stop the trend.
What would it take for the separatist-independence bloc to fragment enough for a majority to agree to fit into the Canadian mould? The key may lie in the trick found by the Legault government to unilaterally insert into Pierre Trudeau’s Constitution the affirmation that Quebec forms a nation of which French is the official and common language. This process, which was included in the language bill and validated by a majority of elected members of the House of Commons (but not by the Supreme Court), could satisfy the shrinking appetite of Quebecers for autonomy. We know this, because the question was put to them by Léger in May of last year on behalf of the Anglo lobby Quebec Community Groups Network, but it was not picked up, to my knowledge, by any media.
To the question “If the Constitution of Canada recognized Quebec as a nation and French as its official language, should Quebec sign the Constitution?” 72% of Quebecers, including 78% of Francophones, say yes. It’s a lot.
Obviously, Pierre Trudeau fought throughout his political life against the recognition of the Quebec nation; he would rage to see these accursed words inscribed in his Constitution. The fact remains that the insertion by Quebec of this symbolic rattle without any consequence for its real degree of autonomy would paradoxically end up offering Trudeauism the piece it lacked – the signature of Quebec – to install its Constitution even more comfortably in its millennial project. .