In early 1980, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who had announced his retirement following his party’s defeat nine months earlier but had not been replaced, successfully convinced Canadians to return to power after the fall clumsy Joe Clark’s minority government. The Lévesque government had presented to the National Assembly the question that was going to be the subject of a referendum, and Mr. Trudeau would have the mandate to prevent the splitting of the country.
Once the sovereigntist camp had been defeated, he continued on his way by enshrining in the Constitution a charter of rights to exorcise the French-speaking majority of Quebec, which had the incorrigible tendency to want to impose its tyranny on its minorities. And even after his final retirement, he had not given up on his great work. When the Meech Lake Accord sought to enshrine recognition of a “distinct society” in the Constitution, it used all its influence to prevent such ignominy.
Trudeau Jr. picked up where his father left off.
With only three deputies, the PQ no longer represents a threat and Quebec is now led by a Prime Minister who calls himself a proud Canadian and challenges the PLQ’s role as defender of federalism, but Quebec francophones have not been freed to so many of their evil demons. In Mr. Trudeau’s eyes, the shocking inclusion of the derogation provision in Bills 21 (on secularism) and 96 (on language) thus illustrates this flaw that is so contrary to the virtues of multiculturalism and bilingualism that make greatness from Canada.
This great fight that he intends to wage also has the advantage of relegating to the background a record that voters are likely to consider unsatisfactory when they go to the polls. Besides, how can we compare the fight against climate change or the evils of inflation with such a sacred mission?
The best is the enemy of the good, however, and Mr. Trudeau seems to have understood that he has somewhat overdone it by choosing a representative to fight against Islamophobia, whose contemptuous remarks have inflamed Quebec.
Admittedly, he is not yet planning to return Amira Elghawaby to her militant activities, but the explanations he gave on Wednesday give the impression that his thinking has evolved rapidly over the past few hours. “That was mixed up a bit with this idea of intolerance with others, but that’s not it at all. Quebecers just want others to be liberated and to be completely free,” he said.
“People need to understand a little bit that there are two visions of what a secular society is and that it will be resolved when reasonable people have a real and deep conversation. It’s easy to go up to the barricades and point fingers at each other,” he added.
These wise words are “a little bit” – and even very – different from what Mr. Trudeau has said in the past. Mme Elghawaby herself has returned to better feelings, to the point of offering her apologies to those who might have found her remarks hurtful. We must no doubt take note of this, even if she is still of the opinion that Bill 21 is discriminatory.
The Prime Minister of Canada’s new way of seeing things is similar to that defended by Judge Mainville in the split decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal on the request for the suspension of Bill 21 presented by the National Council of Canadian Muslims. “The conception of religious symbolism and its place in the public space are not perceived in the same way by each society. The law on secularism [de l’État] is a striking example of this within Canada,” he wrote.
Without wishing to doubt the sincerity of Mr. Trudeau’s new provisions, it would be even more convincing if he drew the logical conclusion from his observations, that it is permissible to have different visions of secularism without necessarily being accused of intolerance or needing an exorcism.
If that’s what he really thinks, he should give up joining the challenge to Bill 21 in court. Better yet, he could ask federal prosecutors to defend her. He could also explain to English Canada that it is too easy to go up to the barricades and point the finger at Quebec.
It is true that it would be asking a lot of him. Not only would his father be turning in his grave, but his constituents would no doubt have a hard time understanding that the Quebec difference does not necessarily constitute a stain on the Canadian tablecloth.