WHAT WOULD PIERRE HAVE DONE?

Whether you loved him or hated him, you always knew where Pierre Trudeau stood. Especially if you were a Quebec nationalist. Over five decades, Trudeau serially skewered the sacred cows of Quebec nationalism. And he never hid or soft-pedalled or left anyone in any doubt about where he stood on the Canadian Constitution and Quebec’s place in it.

Did it hurt him politically in Quebec? Not one bit. He did win the eternal enmity of Quebec separatists. But in five federal elections from 1968 on his Liberal party never held fewer than 75 per cent of Quebec’s seats in the House of Commons. And in his last election, in 1980, he won fully 98.7 per cent of them, losing only one of the province’s 75 seats (to Progressive Conservative Roch La Salle, later a Mulroney cabinet minister).

Current federal leaders, please note: a politician with convictions said things that offended Quebec nationalists and still did well electorally in Quebec. True, maybe times have changed. Maybe Quebecers now prefer their politicians mealy-mouthed and timid. But I doubt it. I suspect if you stood up and said what you really believe and didn’t mince your words, you would win the respect of lots of Quebecers. I also suspect most Quebec voters will not be casting their ballot mainly on the basis of your constitutional position. Quebecers have given every indication over the past two decades that they are fed up with constitutional matters.

So, if you are undecided about whether to reveal your convictions or not, consider that a) the Constitution is an issue that’s not likely to be critical but b) allows you to show voters you would be a principled leader, something many of them long for. Even if you don’t have convictions, and several of you seem not to, it may well be advantageous to pretend you do. Life would be easier, of course, if you really did have convictions — rather than convections, which is what I first incorrectly typed here but in fact describes how many of our leaders make up their minds: by assessing which way the winds are blowing.

Regarding principles and convictions, what about the substance of Quebec’s constitutional proposal? Or intention, since they haven’t so much as proposed an amendment as simply declared they’re going to do it.

We are told the purpose of constitutionalizing that Quebec is a nation and French its common language is merely symbolic. If that is true, it doesn’t belong in the Constitution. Put it on the flag or in the national anthem. Those are symbolic. But the Constitution is a set of rules, practical and descriptive, about how Canada is to work.

Moreover, to think the amendment would be merely symbolic is naive. All words in the Constitution have an effect on those rules when the courts take them into account in interpreting the Constitution.

Because the amendment’s effect would not be merely symbolic, may we hear what its declarers intend its effect to be? If it is merely to provide constitutional sanction to what is already the law of Quebec, they should object to having the amendment say it should not be interpreted as expanding Quebec’s powers. The word “merely” is used advisedly in that last sentence. I’m an economist, not a lawyer (to my mother’s everlasting regret) but giving a law constitutional sanction is something different from simply enacting it.

We are told the constitutional change Quebec wants to make pertains only to Quebec so only needs Quebec’s approval. If a province wants to change its name, as Newfoundland did in 2001, that doesn’t affect other provinces — unless the new name is, for example, “Newfoundland, Canada’s best province” or “Quebec (now an independent country).” Or if a province wants to change an institution that exists only within the province, as Quebec did in 1997 when it switched from confessional to linguistic school boards, only the federal government needs to agree (though it does need to agree, by vote of Parliament, as happened, remarkably, when Jean Chrétien was prime minister and Lucien Bouchard premier, men who had just fought a bitter, vicious and fateful referendum).

But whether one part of a confederation regards itself as a “nation” and considers itself exempt from the official bilingualism to which other parts are subject are not matters that affect that part alone. A constitution, one that lasts any length of time, as ours has, is the result of intricate, often delicate compromises and trade-offs. If Quebec changes the balance of the federation in this way, does the rest of the country get anything in return? Truly open provincial borders, perhaps? Or at the very least, a concession, finally, that the Canadian Constitution now has the province’s official blessing? The rest of the country may have other asks, too.

The Globe and Mail has written that Justin Trudeau should not take the bait Premier François Legault is serving up for him as he contemplates calling an election that he hopes will restore his majority. Pierre Trudeau would have taken the bait, chewed it up and spat it back in the premier’s face. And Quebecers would have respected him for that and not punished him at the ballot box.

A POLITICIAN WITH CONVICTIONS SAID THINGS THAT OFFENDED QUEBEC NATIONALISTS AND STILL DID WELL ELECTORALLY.