Lessons in humility from the federal vote

Legault's gambit failed to pay off, and now Trudeau owes him nothing

François Legault told his newly elected MNAS in 2018 that the most important thing for them to remember is that they have to remain humble, notwithstanding the scope of their landslide victory. It's advice Legault himself should have heeded during the federal general election.

Despite Legault's specific admonition that it would be against Quebec's better interests to vote for Trudeau, Quebecers did just that in proportions comparable to those who voted for the Bloc Québécois and with a similar number of seats.

Legault's support for the Conservatives and the Bloc might have helped them save some seats, but it didn't change the result from 2019.

Pollster Jean-marc Léger noted that the Bloc had dropped one point per week throughout the campaign until the English-language TV debate, which wound up providing it with a providential lift in the polls.

The opening question of that debate to Yves-françois Blanchet was clearly biased. By lumping the Bloc leader into the category of people who won't acknowledge that Quebec (like every other jurisdiction) has a problem with racism, the moderator unwittingly exposed her own prejudices.

Many, if not most, Quebecers recognize that problem. Blanchet is one of them and, in fact, he is one of the few senior politicians to do so. In my view, he deserves credit for it, not lecturing. But it's as if “you're a Quebecer, ergo you must be prejudiced” wasn't, in and of itself, an example of prejudice in its truest sense: prejudging.

If anyone thought the “two solitudes” were a thing of the past, they should think again. More than ever, strong nationalist voices are saying Quebec's desire to contain immigration, despite a serious labour shortage, is the right path, as is restricting minority rights.

Bill 21 openly discriminates against religious minorities. All you have to do is read it to know that. There's a chapter on face coverings that clearly singles out Muslim women. We are the only jurisdiction in North America where a Sikh man cannot become a police officer because of his turban, a Muslim woman cannot become a teacher if she wears a head scarf and a lawyer cannot become a prosecutor if he wears a kippah.

The arguments in favour of Bill 21 centre on shopworn themes developed mostly in Europe and are rooted in Islamophobic tropes. Banning head scarves has led to banning Muslim moms from accompanying kids on school field trips. Other religions are mostly collateral damage. It's ugly and flies in the face of the values espoused, on paper, by the European Union.

Trouble is, even human rights tribunals there have said they see no problem with this sort of ban, and prominent opinion leaders argue that it's necessary here.

Bill 96 is patently unconstitutional. All parties in Ottawa have said they backed Quebec's claim that it could amend the Constitution and remove language rights unilaterally. No leader was willing to clearly say they'd defend constitutional and charter rights by challenging Bill 21 or Bill 96 before the courts.

In the light of Legault's anti-liberal marching orders and given the results of the vote, without putting too fine a point in it, Trudeau owes him nothing.

Ottawa has its own particularly enlightened piece of language legislation (called Bill C-32 at dissolution) that the Liberals would do well to put back onto the order paper as soon as possible. It too has broad support and would accomplish long overdue things like ordering every Canadian airline (think Westjet and Porter) to provide services in both languages as Air Canada is required to do. These changes are welcome and are the result of thoughtful consultation by Mélanie Joly, the minister of official languages.

Trudeau, sensing that his time in office has a best-before date, should start thinking about his legacy. A strong stance in defence of rights would be a good place to start.