{"id":258347,"date":"2021-05-25T14:00:45","date_gmt":"2021-05-25T11:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/trudeau-le-quebecois-macleans-ca\/"},"modified":"2021-05-25T14:00:45","modified_gmt":"2021-05-25T11:00:45","slug":"trudeau-le-quebecois-macleans-ca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/trudeau-le-quebecois-macleans-ca\/","title":{"rendered":"#Trudeau le qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois – Macleans.ca"},"content":{"rendered":"

“#Trudeau le qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois – Macleans.ca<\/strong>”<\/p>\n

\n Everyone\u2019s wondering, yet again, what Justin Trudeau\u2019s game<\/a> is in Quebec. I doubt he\u2019d have it any other way. Here\u2019s my best attempt to discern the Prime Minister\u2019s thinking on what will probably be the main battlefield of the next federal election. I will need to go into some detail. Settle in.<\/p>\n

I met Trudeau in Montreal in 2003. This was during the period when, as the Prime Minister\u2019s Britannica bio puts it<\/a>, he \u201cbegan and then abandoned engineering studies at the University of Montreal\u2026 pursued but did not complete an M.A. in environmental geography at McGill\u2026 worked at a Montreal radio station\u2026 had a role in the television miniseries<\/a> The Great War<\/em>\u201d and, \u201cperhaps most significantly\u2026 served as the chairman of the board of directors of Katimavik.\u201d<\/p>\n

A few days after I met and interviewed him in Montreal, Trudeau became the bottom half of the second column I ever wrote<\/a> for this magazine. He had pulled a nerdy publicity stunt: as a juror on the CBC radio book show Canada Reads<\/em>, he had abandoned the novel he was there to champion, Wayne Johnston\u2019s The<\/em>\u00a0Colony of Unrequited Dreams<\/em>, and voted instead in the final round for the novel Johnston\u2019s was competing against: Hubert Aquin\u2019s Prochain \u00c9pisode<\/em>, translated as Next Episode<\/em>.\u00a0 It was news<\/a> of a sort, because Trudeau was a Trudeau and Aquin was an early committed Quebec separatist who helped found one of the Parti Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois\u2019s precursor parties, flirted with terrorism and ended up killing himself.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

A Trudeau signing up to defend a separatist? Partly he just liked the effect. At his best, Trudeau can be quite self-aware. \u201cThere was a playfulness there,\u201d he said. But he also loved Aquin\u2019s book, certainly more than I did. \u201cAquin is all about things that you want desperately and passionately but can\u2019t follow through on\u2014not so much for external reasons as for your own internal reasons,\u201d he said. \u201cI mean, it\u2019s Hamlet.\u201d<\/p>\n

All of which is to say that Justin Trudeau has long had\u2014and enjoyed being seen to have\u2014a less confrontational attitude toward Quebec nationalism than his father, Pierre Trudeau.<\/p>\n

Sometimes it comes out at odd angles. The younger Trudeau isn\u2019t a theorist. In 2012 he said<\/a> that if he came to believe Canada \u201cwas really the Canada of Stephen Harper\u201d he might \u201cthink of wanting to make Quebec a country.\u201d In 2017, after he\u2019d been Prime Minister for more than a year, he refused to answer English questions in English<\/a> at a town-hall meeting in Sherbrooke. He later apologized<\/a>. This latter mind glitch was no more impressive to nationalist francophone Quebecers of my acquaintance than to anyone else. But I think he meant well?<\/p>\n

Trudeau\u2019s relationship with francophone Quebec has never been easy or automatic. Of course people connect him to his father, but his mother\u2019s family was a fixture of Vancouver politics and society. He lived at an Ontario address, 24 Sussex Drive, until he was nearly 14. Later he lived for significant stretches of time in Whistler and Vancouver as a young adult. I think the second time I met him, he said one reason he took that Montreal radio gig was that his spoken French needed brushing up. He still gets ridiculed here and there on Twitter<\/a> during French-language leaders\u2019 debates for his lapses of grammar and syntax. In his memoir Common Ground<\/em>, which is the Canadian political equivalent of Stephen Hawking\u2019s A Brief History of Time<\/em>\u2014it\u2019s on a lot of bookshelves, but not a lot of people have actually read it\u2014he mentions that his \u201cpolitical style\u201d was \u201cprofoundly influenced\u201d by his wife Sophie, partly because she has \u201ca deep, intuitive understanding of Quebec.\u201d<\/p>\n

It makes sense that Trudeau would mention his spouse\u2019s \u201cunderstanding of Quebec\u201d in a specifically political<\/em> context. Quebec often features prominently in his political calculations. Think of SNC Lavalin: Jody Wilson-Raybould said she was repeatedly told the trial had to be short-circuited because elections were coming up, and Liberal seats were on the line. Not just the federal election, but also the provincial election in Quebec. None of the staffers who could have confirmed or contradicted Wilson-Raybould\u2019s claim were permitted to testify at committee or to the ethics commissioner.<\/p>\n

Of course Trudeau shares this Quebec preoccupation with many other national party leaders. Trudeau I, Mulroney, Chr\u00e9tien, Paul Martin: Each believed they had found the correct way for integrating Quebec into their Canadian project. Each devoted disproportionate energy to Quebec. Each came to grief over their Quebec obsession and, if they\u2019d known that\u2019s what would happ<\/a>en, still wouldn\u2019t have changed much. Stephen Harper was actually not much different. Hence the way he began almost every public remark in French, the small symbolic concessions (Harper became the first Prime Minister in decades to visit a premier in Quebec City rather than insisting the meeting happen in Ottawa), and of course the astonishing decision to recognize \u201cthe Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois\u201d as \u201ca nation\u201d via a parliamentary resolution.<\/p>\n

Nor has Quebec been only the obsession of prime ministers. The NDP spent decades trying to get noticed and taken seriously in Quebec, always advocated an asymmetrical federalism, made countless anglos labour through French questions in the Commons, before Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair achieved the 2011 breakthrough that gave the party its largest-ever share of votes and seats. Andrew Scheer and Erin O\u2019Toole have sought to keep the Conservative Party viable in Quebec, often at considerable cost<\/a> to their dignity<\/a>. The reason for this preoccupation is largely pragmatic: Quebec has 78 seats, most of them have swung from one party to another several times since 1984, so it\u2019s the biggest wild card in the game. Everyone thinks they can win. Everyone\u2019s worried another party will get momentum there. So everyone overthinks Quebec.<\/p>\n

Back to Trudeau. He\u2019s actually sometimes been a conspicuous dissenter from Quebec conventional wisdom during federal elections. In 2015, veiled voting became an election issue, thanks to a last-ditch attempt by the failing Harper Conservatives to echo some secularist rhetoric<\/a> from the Parti Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois. The NDP\u2019s Tom Mulcair hesitated before diverging from the Quebec consensus and lost his lead. But Trudeau stood against the Conservative\/Bloc\/Journal de Montr\u00e9al<\/em> position from the outset. The Liberals won more seats in Quebec than any other party all the same. In 2019, the test was Quebec\u2019s Bill 21, which bans most provincial public servants from wearing religious symbols on the job. Trudeau alone declared a willingness to challenge the bill in court. (To date he hasn\u2019t followed through.) Some thought his stance risky<\/a>. It didn\u2019t stop him from winning a plurality of Quebec seats, again.<\/p>\n

But in an election likely to come this autumn, Trudeau would like to pick up, let\u2019s say, another 10 seats in Quebec. He\u2019s already on track to pick up six, according to one projection<\/a>, mostly because the Bloc Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois vote has softened. Those winnable seats are general<\/a>ly outside Montreal, overwhelmingly francophone, and in places where most people didn\u2019t vote Liberal the last two times. So this year Trudeau seems to be preferring honey to vinegar.<\/p>\n

First, there is the traditional spreading of the largesse. Trudeau has\u00a0travel<\/a>led to Quebec twice in recent months to make joint announcements with Fran\u00e7ois Legault. On March 15 they were in St. J\u00e9r\u00f4me to announce money for\u00a0electric bus batteries<\/a>. A week later Trudeau and Legault were in Trois-Rivi\u00e8res, which the Liberal candidate lost to the Bloc by only 2.4 percentage points in 2019, to split an $826-million tab for\u00a0high-speed internet<\/a> for 150,000 households. That\u2019s $5,500 per house.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s also been a multi-front campaign to appeal to Quebecers in cash-free ways. In February Melanie Joly, the minister for official languages, released a proposal for sweeping reform to the Official Languages Act<\/a> that made no show of equal treatment of French and English. \u201cThe use of French is declining in Canada and its vitality is a cause for concern,\u201d Joly\u2019s opening \u201cstatement from the minister\u201d said<\/a>. \u201cWe recognize that French is a minority language compared to English and that we have an increased duty to protect it.\u201d The package didn\u2019t get a lot of coverage, but the Official Languages Commissioner did worry<\/a> Joly was being too hard on Quebec anglophones, which I suspect had them popping champagne bottles in more than a few Trudeau Liberal Zoom meetings. The goal is to be the rare Liberal government that\u2019s seen to be rowing in the same direction as the Quebec government on language, rather than trying to block it. The Liberals hope to compress the Bloc and Conservative vote in Quebec next time. The Bloc exists to outflank the Liberals on francophone Quebec nationalism. Erin O\u2019Toole has been trying<\/a> to do the same. From this perspective, ticking off the language commissioner is a feature, not a bug.<\/p>\n

Similarly, there\u2019s no way to understand Steven Guilbeault\u2019s crusade against the \u201cWeb giants\u201d\u2014embodied in Bill C-10, which would extend the CRTC\u2019s regulatory ambit to the internet\u2014without watching how it\u2019s playing in Quebec. To caricature and oversimplify: Outside Quebec, Guilbeault is increasingly seen as a stumblebum who\u2019s \u201cunable<\/a> to respond coherently to basic questions.\u201d Inside Quebec, he\u2019s a rock star whose PMO minders are still, today, giving him very<\/em> wide latitude. If you live in French in Quebec, you\u2019re way likelier to view the internet as an unending avalanche of English, and to support any means for diverting Google\u2019s and Netflix\u2019s revenue to Quebec\u2019s French-language cultural industries. Other federal ministers from Quebec aren\u2019t distancing themselves from C-10; quite the contrary<\/a>. Meanwhile Quebec\u2019s National Assembly voted unanimously<\/a> to support C-10. It may be the first time in 60 years the National Assembly has voted unanimously in favour of anything<\/em> anyone named Trudeau has done. Suddenly the Bloc Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois is offering to help rush the bill through passage<\/a> before an election. It\u2019s self-preservation: if Trudeau gets to go out on the campaign trail and say, \u201cI tried to protect our culture but the Bloc and the Conservatives wouldn\u2019t let me,\u201d it won\u2019t be a great day for the Bloc.<\/p>\n

So. Judiciously distributed cash; Joly\u2019s language reform; Guilbeault\u2019s Quixotic quest. All of which brings us, at last, to Bill 96, Fran\u00e7ois Legault\u2019s sweeping update to Quebec\u2019s language law; to the bill\u2019s proposed constitutional amendment; and to Trudeau\u2019s chill response.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a lot in Bill 96<\/a>, and even moderate Quebec anglophone groups don\u2019t like it<\/a>. There\u2019s a debate worth having over the entire package, but as a matter of federal politics, the main event is a proposal to amend the Canadian Constitution\u2014unilaterally<\/a>, through the action of Quebec\u2019s National Assembly acting alone\u2014to declare that Quebec is a nation and that its \u201conly\u201d official language is French.<\/p>\n

Here I must get into a level of detail that thrills<\/em> veterans of the Constitutional Wars, 1981-1999, and will threaten to incapacitate everyone else. Sorry. It\u2019s the times.<\/p>\n

This would not<\/em> be a bilateral amendment, like the 1997 amendments abolishing religion-based school boards in Newfoundland and Labrador<\/a>, and in Quebec<\/a>. Those took place via S. 43 of the 1982 Constitution Act, 1982. It requires that identical resolutions pass the Senate, the House of Commons, and the legislature of the concerned province. Ottawa\u2019s cooperation was not<\/em> automatic. St\u00e9phane Dion consulted widely in each province. The Quebec government of the day, and the Bloc Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, were not pleased. Dion didn\u2019t mind. In the end Quebec got its amendment\u2014and because it had agreed with the federal Parliament on specific wording with clear judicial consequences, the amendment had weight.<\/p>\n

This is not that. Legault and his smart, ambitious minister for the French language and four other portfolios, Simon Jolin-Barrette, want to use S. 43 of the Constitution to pass their amendment. Here\u2019s S. 43:<\/p>\n

\u201c45. Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Section 41 says that for most amendments you need at least 7 provinces to agree. The subjects listed in S. 41 include, \u201csubject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language.\u201d And S. 43 is the one Dion and two provinces used in 1997, a bilateral process involving Parliament and a provincial legislature. These are required<\/em>, say all the sections around it, for \u201cany amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province.\u201d<\/p>\n

Fran\u00e7ois Legault and his minister don\u2019t want to do this. They want to amend Quebec\u2019s \u201cconstitution\u201d to declare that Quebec is a nation whose only official language is French, without<\/em> using the process that is required<\/em> for \u201cany amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or French language\u201d within their province.<\/p>\n

It follows that they don\u2019t want to amend<\/em> any provision relating to the use of English and French in Quebec. Are there any such provisions elsewhere in the constitution? You bet: over here, for instance, we have S. 133<\/a>, which holds that English and French have equal footing in Quebec\u2019s legislature, its courts and its laws.<\/p>\n

Trudeau\u2019s reaction to Bill 96 astonished many observers. \u201cIt is perfectly legitimate for a province to modify the section of the Constitution that applies specifically to them and that is something they can do,\u201d he said<\/a>, \u201cwhile ensuring, of course, that the rest of the Constitution, including the sections that protect linguistic minorities, like anglophones in Quebec, continue to be respected.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s fair to say the first half of that long sentence drew more attention and raised more eyebrows. Quebec wants to re-open the Pandora\u2019s box! The intermittently sovereignist-ish premier of Quebec! To say Meech-y things! (Kids: ask your parents.) And the Prime Minister of Canada, whose name is actually<\/em> Trudeau, is asleep at the switch! Cue many agonized column-inches from the dwindling number of columnists who are even older than I am, and whose constitutional-war muscle memory remains finely honed. This from Andr\u00e9 Pratte<\/a> is representative.<\/p>\n

I, on the other hand, am inclined to see things Trudeau\u2019s way. It\u2019s been a while, but sometimes it happens. It is always handy to read the fine print, especially when the fine print actually occupies the same sentence as the headline stuff. It\u2019s \u201cperfectly legitimate\u201d to do the unilateral thing\u2014while ensuring that \u201cthe rest of the Constitution, including the sections that protect linguistic minorities\u2026 continue to be respected.\u201d Maybe he meant that part. It\u2019s been a while since I could muster a hearty endorsement of this Prime Minister on any file, but, I mean, sometimes<\/em> he means what he says?<\/p>\n

And the thing is, as we\u2019ve seen, this isn\u2019t only what Justin Trudeau says. It\u2019s what S. 45 itself says\u2014Jolin-Barrette\u2019s chosen instrument for consummating his constitutional equivalent of a Vegas wedding. It says a province can do anything, \u201csubject to\u201d the bit that says it can\u2019t touch \u201cthe use of the English or French language,\u201d \u201csubject to\u201d another bit that says it can\u2019t touch \u201cany provision that relates to the use of the English or French language\u201d in a province.<\/p>\n

Here is my best attempt to understand the expert advice the Prime Minister would have received on this topic. The courts have long used a technique called \u201creading down\u201d when a sweeping assertion in one law bumps up against a specific provision in another. Especially when the sweeping assertion might seem to exert jurisdiction that is specifically limited elsewhere. And especially when the specific limits are constitutional. A judge who is \u201creading down\u201d a statute simply declares that, while the general language sounds nice, of course it is meaningless where expressly and specifically limited.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s what happened at the end of this 20-year challenge<\/a> to Bill 99, a similarly witty attempt by a previous Quebec government to list \u201cfundamental prerogatives\u201d of the \u201cQu\u00e9b\u00e9cois people.\u201d A federalist group in Quebec challenged the law as a blueprint for unilateral secession. A lower court in Quebec upheld the law, using what struck me as terrible reasoning. The Quebec appeals court upheld it too\u2014but the judge said, in effect, no part of the law would have any effect to the extent it came into conflict with other Canadian laws. In effect, the judge read down Bill 99 to say it\u2019s valid as long as it\u2019s meaningless, and no further. Of course Simon Jolin-Barrette was delighted. He seems easy to please.<\/p>\n

The parallel isn\u2019t perfect. But consider a judge who\u2019s asked to weigh the meaning of a declaration, on the one hand, that French is Quebec\u2019s only official language; and on the other, a list of the Quebec government\u2019s obligations regarding the English language, which has had constitutional status in Quebec since 1867. Consider, as this judge would, that Legault\u2019s government could have sought the approval of a majority of provinces, but didn\u2019t bother. That it could have sought the approval of Parliament, but didn\u2019t bother.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think there\u2019s much to be worried about here.<\/p>\n

My discussion of Bill 96 here has been a bit of a long haul. Sorry. Maybe I can simplify it by saying that, in constitutional amendments as in much else, you get what you pay for. Work and patience and accommodation buy solidity. Stunts buy stunts. Confederation followed a 27-year dry run that began with the 1940 Act of Union and ended with multilateral constitutional conferences in Quebec, Charlottetown and London. Pierre Trudeau\u2019s 1982 constitutional repatriation capped 16 years of sustained engagement. Pundits are welcome to harp on the so-called Night of the Long Knives; six thousand days and nights came before it.<\/p>\n

Now along come Legault and Jolin-Barrette with what are essentially tweets. I had great fun reading over the weekend what happened when Jolin-Barrette told a reporter for Le Devoir<\/em><\/a> that his new proposed clauses would stand up to any of the older language in the constitution and, indeed, crush it. Beno\u00eet Pelletier, a leading constitutionalist who was Jean Charest\u2019s minister for intergovernmental affairs and who advised Jolin-Barrette on this package, said, hang on, I\u2019m not sure that\u2019s true<\/em>. Another prof, Marc Chevrier, says he\u2019d be astonished if the new language has any legal effect. And, I mean,\u00a0Le Devoir<\/em> is supposed to be the place where projects like this get an easy ride.<\/p>\n

I come to the end of my tale. Old battlegrounds have a way of reviving old reflexes, but reflexes are just reflexes, and we are allowed to think instead. It was clear, long before Legault and Jolin-Barrette came along, that Justin Trudeau wants to win big in Quebec next time. But wanting to win is no guarantee of being wrong.
\n<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n