René Lévesque & Pierre Trudeau

René Lévesque and Pierre Trudeau are often thought of as 'bitter political enemies', the one a strident Quebec nationalist, the other a committed Canadian federalist.

Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and René Lévesque
arrive for dinner at the Government House in Ottawa on Jan. 4, 1979.

But were they opponents? Were they working at cross purposes, or the same purpose? Let's look at the timing of the first Quebec referendum held in 1980 and the Constitution Act of 1982, which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, just for a moment, ignore what everyone was saying at the time and consider what they were actually doing. Lévesque was trying to increase the barriers between Quebec and the rest of Canada by declaring the province an independent country. The whole point of having a country is to control access and impose cultural norms as laws. The net effect of this process would have been to make Quebec a stronger culture than it had been inside Canada.

What was Trudeau doing? He was promoting the idea that Canada needed a constitution and getting all the other provinces, and The Queen, to go along with him. Along with 'patriating' the constitution, Trudeau bolted on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 27 of which officially threw bi-culturalism out the window and enshrined multiculturalism in the country's basic document. (Note 1)

He had been working on this idea for some time, just like Lévesque had been working on his idea. Take for example, Trudeau's speech to the Commons October 8, 1971. Here's a snippet:

It was the view of the royal commission, shared by the government and, I am sure, by all Canadians, that there cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and French origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for all others. For although there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian, and all should be treated fairly.
The royal commission was guided by the belief that adherence to one's ethnic group is influenced not so much by one's origin or mother tongue as by one's sense of belonging to the group, and by what the commission calls the group's "collective will to exist." The government shares this belief. (Note 2)

Bravo Pierre! You have managed to say Canada has no official culture, and that language is not a cultural determinant, but that culture is really a reflection of the group's 'collective will to exist.' Well, let me see now, that would include Quebec, oui?

So what you are saying my dear Mr. Prime Minister is that your government is supporting each and every cultural group in Canada, the Japanese-Canadians, native-Canadians, Greek-Canadians, Vietnamese-Canadians, Mexican-Canadians, Saudi Arabian-Canadians, Togo-Canadians, and all the rest? And French-Canadians too, eh?

The government will support and encourage the various cultures and ethnic groups that give structure and vitality to our society. (Note 3) They will be encouraged to share their cultural expression and values with other Canadians and so contribute to a richer life for us all.

OK, I understand that perfectly. In English Canada you will support every cultural group that steps over the transom and in French Canada you will support French Canada. How does this differ from Lévesque's proposal? The net effect of independence would be to make Quebec a stronger culture than it had been before. So would the net effect of multiculturalism, because it would only affect the English because English Canada has no culture. French Canada already was a culture

Let me put this in more graphic terms. If you are faced with a flood you have two choices:

1. Build a higher dike or embankment.
2. Lower the water level

Faced with the flood of English-speaking culture you have two choices:

1. Build a nation (René Lévesque)
2. Reduce the strength of English-speaking culture by introducing others (Pierre Trudeau)

The beauty of this plan was that no one would see it in action. Everyone would be fixated on the 'conflict' between Ottawa and Quebec; no one would notice the end result of either plan was the same, the elevation of French culture to a plateau of unassailable strength.

But to make it unassailable Trudeau had first to create the idea of a constitution, attach an amending formula Quebec could block or ignore and get the Queen to sign it.

Which he did. Bravo Pierre! You fooled us all, even René Lévesque. Or did you tell him the truth over dinner that night in 1979?

Notes

1. I realize this section is after multiculturalism was declared a policy (in 1971) and before it was made into a law of its own (in 1988). It is obviously more powerful in the Charter than in its own Act.
   
2. The phrase "there is no official culture" is telling because, as we all know, laws themselves are just codified culture. Trudeau was speaking of a country, Canada, which had two cultures: English culture based on English Common Law, and French culture based on the French Civil Code. To say Canada had no culture, is to deny English law in its entirety. It might be more honest to say that if he had his way, Canada would get rid of English Common Law, as I have written elsewhere.
3. Trudeau's support for French culture was made explicit in the Cullen-Couture Agreement on Feb. 20, 1978 which gave Quebec effective control over immigration, an accord which has since been repeated and refined. This is, of course, what Lévesque wanted for his new nation of Quebec. Amazing how great minds think alike.