The Trudeau Paradox And Canadian Unity: Nationalism and Reconciliation
January 16, 2013 | 6 Comments
Last year’s Quebec election, when the Parti Quebecois returned to power, only reinforced the perception of many Canadians outside Quebec that the province was spoiled and bigoted, only staying in Canada for the financial gains, discriminating against its minorities and threatening to separate if it didn’t get its way. After four decades of Quebecers in the Prime Minister’s chair, many people were convinced that nothing would satisfy Quebec.
They consider Pierre Trudeau the first Prime Minister to try and impose Quebec’s agenda on the rest of the country, particularly with bilingualism. However, what most people outside Quebec don’t realize is that Trudeau’s efforts were meant to fight Quebec nationalism, and impose an agenda that would undermine any claim that Quebec was a distinct society in Canada. The rest of the country-rather reluctantly, in some cases-accepted bilingualism and multiculturalism as a way of accommodating Quebecers and making them feel more at home in Canada. However, when separatism persisted, many Canadians in the rest of the country thought Quebec was acting in bad faith.
This is because of what I call the “Trudeau Paradox”, whereby Trudeau’s ideas and visions became more more popular outside Quebec than inside it, even as most other Canadians thought that Trudeau was imposing Quebec’s agenda on the rest of the country. This created the fundamental misunderstanding that nearly wrecked the country in 1995, and has undermined Canadian unity for more than three decades.
I examine the Trudeau Paradox in more detail in a three-part article kindly hosted on Vive Le Canada. Part One is here, Part Two is here, and Part Three is here.
Comments and feedback are both welcome and encouraged.
Comments
6 Responses to “The Trudeau Paradox And Canadian Unity: Nationalism and Reconciliation”
Leave a Reply
January 28th, 2013 @ 9:48 am
Those links don’t seem to work…I think the final backslash “/” needs to come off.
[Reply]
Jonathan McLeod Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Those should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing them out.
[Reply]
March 19th, 2013 @ 3:02 pm
Mr. Jared Milne,
I do not agree with your statement that: ” Quebec was spoiled and bigoted, only staing in Canada for the financial gains”,
but I agree with the rest of your sentence that there is dicrimination.
Why? Becaause Quebec since 40 ears din not need any financial help. It could and can sustain economically alone. The accommodation of Quebec started with the federal liberals. It was wrong. It was costly and it did not solve the unity problem.
What was wrog and is wrong that Quebec was not and is not constitutionally reconized as an equal partner with the English.
This was and is the basic problem until now.
However there was similar problem in former Czechoslovakia. They were three nations: Czech, Slovak and Moravian. In 1992 I proposed a solution and the result was two Nation-State. Moravian-Nation could not form a Nation-State because of economy that was too small, so it decised to go with Czech Republic.
Simular proposal I submited in 1995 to All Canadian political parties and the Aboriginal Leader, but I have received just acknowledgement from same of them.
So,
In February I updated the above proposal and I am presenting it in my Webside.
[Reply]
March 19th, 2013 @ 7:05 pm
Mr. Jared Milne,
I do not agree with your statement that: ” Quebec was spoiled and bigoted, only staing in Canada for the financial gains”,
but I agree with the rest of your sentence that there is dicrimination.
Why? Becaause Quebec since 40 ears din not need any financial help. It could and can sustain economically alone. The accommodation of Quebec started with the federal liberals. It was wrong. It was costly and it did not solve the unity problem.
What was wrog and is wrong that Quebec was not and is not constitutionally reconized as an equal partner with the English.
This was and is the basic problem until now.
However there was similar problem in former Czechoslovakia. They were three nations: Czech, Slovak and Moravian. In 1992 I proposed a solution and the result was two Nation-State. Moravian-Nation could not form a Nation-State because of economy that was too small, so it decised to go with Czech Republic.
Simular proposal I submited in 1995 to All Canadian political parties and the Aboriginal Leader, but I have received just acknowledgement from some of them.
So,
In February I updated the above proposal and I am presenting it in my Webside.
[Reply]
May 15th, 2013 @ 6:58 pm
È difficile trovare persone competenti su questo argomento, ma sembra che voi sappiate di cosa state parlando! Grazie
[Reply]
Jan Husar Reply:
May 17th, 2013 at 3:35 pm
Christian,
Why Italien?
It’s hard to find knowledgeable people on this topic, but it seems that you know what you’re talking about! Thank you!
Is it right?
[Reply]