De Gaulle, it turned out, was just getting started. The next night, speaking to a boisterous crowd from the balcony of Montreal city hall, the général gave the six-minute speech that famously shook Canada to its foundations. “I am going to tell you a secret which you must not repeat,” he told the crowd, his body straight, his hands gripping twin microphones like handlebars, his voice throaty and hoarse. “This evening, here, and along the length of the route, I felt an excitement to match that of the Liberation!” Again, de Gaulle praised Quebec’s exemplary progress and spoke of France’s bonds of intimacy with French Canadians. His speech gained momentum. With every comment, he grew more animated, his voice more forceful. “Vive le Montréal, Vive le Québec,” he said, pausing in mid-sentence to let the crowd cheer. Then, a moment later, in full voice, like a schoolmaster driving home the day’s most important lesson, he said, “Vive le Québec libre!” (Long live a free Quebec!)
As soon as the words left his lips, the crowd roared its appreciation. The atmosphere was electric. Fleur-de-lis flags were hoisted and people embraced, some of them overcome with raw emotion. There was no mistaking either the context or the meaning of de Gaulle’s careful phrasing. Ecstatic separatists watching him from below the balcony had been chanting “Vive le Québec libre!” during his speech, some of them in sweatshirts that bore the same slogan, others waving huge RIN placards.42 “It’s unbelievable!” said one elated sovereignist in the Montreal crowd.43 And he was right.
Lester Pearson was alone at 24 Sussex that evening, watching de Gaulle’s performance on television. “I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the words he uttered: ‘Vive le Québec libre,’” he later recalled. “This was the slogan of separatists dedicated to the dismemberment of Canada.”44 Pearson immediately ordered a transcript of the speech and called a special cabinet meeting for the next day. The prime minister who had done so much to accommodate Quebec nationalism—indeed, the most affable prime minister Canada had ever had—was plainly furious. “That his entry into Montreal should be compared in any way, shape, or form with his entry into Paris following the Nazi occupation was entirely unacceptable,” Pearson seethed.45
Pierre Trudeau was in Ottawa during de Gaulle’s tour, but perceiving that this was the prime minister’s fight, he remained in the shadows. When Trudeau and his cabinet colleagues met with Pearson the next morning, they found their boss still angry, more determined than ever to reproach de Gaulle for his outrageous speech. Some, including the external affairs minister, Paul Martin, urged Pearson to refrain from scolding de Gaulle publicly. Trudeau, Marc Lalonde (then serving as a policy adviser to the prime minister), and some other Quebecers, on the other hand, advised Pearson to retaliate forcefully. Pearson took this hawkish advice. He went on national television and read aloud a letter he had presented to the French ambassador in Ottawa. “Certain statements by the President tend to encourage the small minority of our population whose aim is to destroy Canada,” said Pearson, “and, as such, they are unacceptable to the Canadian people and its Government. The people of Canada are free. Every province of Canada is free. Canadians do not need to be liberated. Canada will remain united and will reject any effort to destroy her unity.”46
An incensed John Diefenbaker called Pearson’s letter “a mild reproof which would hardly have frightened a fly.”47 The old Tory had caught the public mood. Canadians were beside themselves. The prime minister’s office was deluged with angry phone calls and telegrams advising him to cancel the remainder of de Gaulle’s visit—something Pearson actually considered doing. There were protests at the French consulate on Bay Street in Toronto, where Toronto students hoisted placards that read “Go Home de Gaulle!” Editorial commentary was scathing. The Toronto Star published an editorial bearing the title “This Meddlesome Old Man Abuses Our Courtesy.”48 The Edmonton Journal characterized de Gaulle’s conduct as “monstrous,” the Montreal Gazette called it “deplorable,” the Calgary Herald, “boorish.”49 “If ever during the Algerian war a foreign head of state had taken advantage of France’s hospitality to utter publicly opinions on the solution to the Algerian problem,” observed a Le Soleil editorial, “President de Gaulle would not have been slow in notifying him that his presence was no longer wanted and welcome.”50 Only Claude Ryan at Le Devoir was prepared to give the général the benefit of the doubt. “One hesitates to believe that a statesman as prestigious as General de Gaulle would take advantage of a foreign country’s hospitality to intrude into its internal affairs,” he wrote.51
The day after his controversial Montreal speech, de Gaulle seemed intent on tempering his apparent support for Quebec separatists. Speaking before seven thousand people at Place des Nations at Expo, he cheered “Vive le Canada et vive le Québec!” Daniel Johnson attended a formal dinner that evening as a guest of the French, thanking de Gaulle for opening “a new era” in Quebec’s relations with France but insisting that the province would “be careful to keep open to Canada and the world the ways of fraternity and cooperation.”52 If Canadians believed de Gaulle would respond with contrition to their reproaches, they were mistaken. De Gaulle refused to apologize, saying instead, “If I am unacceptable, too bad.”53 He cancelled his scheduled meeting with Lester Pearson and announced that he would cut short his visit to Canada. “Good riddance” was the overwhelming response from Canadians.54 The général flew home to Paris directly from Montreal on July 27, having never left the province of Quebec. Pearson responded with a prepared statement. “General de Gaulle’s decision to cut short his visit to Canada is understandable in the circumstances,” he said. “But those circumstances, which are not of the Government’s making, are greatly to be regretted.”55
In Quebec, a poll revealed that two-thirds of francophones thought de Gaulle’s words meant “Quebec is free in fact but that it must try to become more so, in its own way, while remaining part of Canada.” Only 17 per cent thought that de Gaulle had endorsed Quebec separatism.56 In English Canada, the général had made the opposite impression. A majority of English Canadians thought that de Gaulle had indeed sanctioned separatism and that Pearson’s response was not nearly strong enough.57 RIN leader Pierre Bourgault lashed out at what he called the “extreme hypocrisy” of English Canadians. “If the Queen Mother of England can, as she has just done in New Brunswick, interfere in our internal affairs by praising the benefits of Confederation, I don’t see under what pretext Gen. de Gaulle can be prevented from encouraging with all his prestige, his passion, his strength and intelligence, the poor little people of Quebec in their fight for life and liberty.”58 Interestingly, 57 per cent of Parisians polled in the aftermath of de Gaulle’s “Vive” cheer did not approve of it.59
On Monday, July 31, de Gaulle escalated his public quarrel with Pearson. At a packed Paris press conference, French information minister Georges Gorse read a government statement to a standing-room-only crowd of reporters. French Canadians, said the communiqué, were not assured of “liberty, equality and fraternity” in Canada, and thus France would assist them in the “liberationist aims they have set for themselves.”60 The next day, after consulting once more with his top ministers, including Pierre Trudeau, Pearson coolly reiterated his objection to de Gaulle’s meddling. “The Government of Canada has noted the statement by the President of the French Republic regarding his recent visit to Canada,” he said. “It has already made its position clear on the unacceptability of any outside interference in Canadian affairs and has nothing to add in present circumstances.”61
Not surprisingly, de Gaulle’s gall was entirely too much for Pearson’s justice minister, who could countenance neither Quebec separatism nor foreign interference in Canadian affairs. Now that Pearson had closed the file, Trudeau emerged from the shadows to condemn the French president outright. De Gaulle’s claim that Quebecers were not guaranteed liberty, equality, and fraternity was “absurd,” he said. “It is as though the Canadian Government allowed itself to say the present French constitution does not provide justice fo
r the Basques, for Brittany, and for the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.”62
On Wednesday, September 4, 1967, the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) met in Quebec City for its forty-ninth annual meeting. Pierre Trudeau was invited to give the keynote address. It was to be his first high-profile public appearance since becoming justice minister, and it was intended to establish his authority as Prime Minister Pearson’s point man on national unity. More significantly, it would demonstrate that the feds’ position on constitutional negotiations with the provinces—which the prime minister had promised for early 1968—was derived almost entirely from the program Trudeau himself had been developing since the 1950s. When the federal justice minister took to the stage to win over the Canadian legal establishment, he believed that he had the backing of the prime minister.
Trudeau’s CBA address was succinct and powerful, couched not in arcane legalese but in the language of national unity. In other words, it was as much a political speech as a juridical one. Trudeau began by observing that one should “undermine” the existing Constitution of a democratic country only “with fear and trembling.” Everyone present knew that he had taken a tough stand against tinkering with the Constitution and paid a high price for it in Quebec. Now, however, the time had come to act. The task for the federal government, said Trudeau, was to determine the best foundation on which to begin a dialogue with the provinces. “We have reached the conclusion that the basis most likely to find a wide degree of acceptance, and one that is in itself a matter calling for urgent attention, is a constitutional Bill of Rights,” he said. “Essentially, we will be testing—and, hopefully, establishing—the unity of Canada. If we reach agreement on the fundamental rights of the citizen, on their definition and protection in all parts of Canada, we shall have taken a major first step toward basic constitutional reform.”
Trudeau made explicit reference to the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights—a federal statute in which many Canadians, John Diefenbaker foremost among them, took immense pride.63 As every lawyer in the room knew, that bill was “statutory in character,” which meant that it applied only in areas of federal jurisdiction and could be superseded by new laws. Undoubtedly for the benefit of Canadians who would before long be drawn into the debate, Trudeau took pains to explain in simple terms why the feds intended to put citizens’ rights beyond the reach of the legislatures. “We all agree on the familiar basic rights—freedom of belief and expression, freedom of association, the right to a fair trial and to fair legal procedures generally,” said Trudeau.
We would also expect a guarantee against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, ethnic or national origin. These are the rights commonly protected by bills of rights. But there are rights of special importance to Canada arising from the fact that this country is founded on two distinct linguistic groups. The right to learn and to use either of the two official languages should be recognized. Without this, we cannot assure every Canadian of an equal opportunity to participate in the political, cultural, economic, and social life of this country. A constitutional change recognizing broader rights with respect to the two official languages would add a new dimension to Confederation.64
Members of Trudeau’s CBA audience had the evening hours of September 4 to digest his ideas and discuss them informally among themselves. And discuss them they did. Over the course of the next day’s proceedings, it became clear not only that many of the country’s top legal minds opposed Trudeau’s idea of a bill of rights but that Trudeau had no interest whatsoever in hearing their views.
Several deans of Canadian law schools weighed in on Trudeau’s proposals at a plenary session the morning of September 5. William Lederman of Queen’s University sounded much like the Trudeau of old. He suggested that Canada would be better off without invoking constitutional change. “Remember,” said Lederman, “when you specially entrench a particular matter, you take the disposition of it out of the hands of the regular legislative bodies and give the courts the last word about the limitations involved.”65 Professors Wilbur Bowker of the University of Alberta and Walter Tarnopolsky of the University of Toronto expressed similar reservations about making the courts “the ultimate guardians of political freedoms.” But it was Université de Montréal law professor Jacques-Yvan Morin who challenged Trudeau’s claim that enshrining individual rights could do the work of protecting collective rights. “Canada consists of two nations and if Canada wishes to endure she must guarantee the existence of two nations,” Morin insisted. “Anyone who tries to use human rights as a precondition of constitutional reform is playing with fire.”66
No one who knew Pierre Trudeau had any doubt about how he would respond to such a spirited defence of deux nations. Against the advice of his closest advisers, including Marc Lalonde, Trudeau insisted on participating in the afternoon’s press conference. At first, Trudeau was assertive but controlled. “I think particular status for Quebec is the biggest intellectual hoax ever foisted on the people of Quebec and the people of Canada,” he remarked. “Quebec is going to discover there is a lot of opposition to its demands, that they are simply not going to be met, and Quebec is going to have to back down.”67 When asked to comment on Professor Morin’s commentary, Trudeau called the idea of deux nations a hoax as well. “If the rest of Canada is generous enough—or fool enough—to give Quebec the powers these people demand and then let Quebec impose its will on the whole country, then that is fine,” he said. “You should always spoil your minorities a little bit, but this is a different thing. Behind these demands from Quebec are people who want to have their cake and eat it, too.”68 Trudeau reiterated his central point about the political advantages of entrenching language rights. “If English Canada would take steps to guarantee and safeguard the language of their French minorities, then French Canada would lose 95 percent of its gripes,” he said.69
If the press conference had ended at that point, Trudeau might have emerged the victor. As it was, journalists from Quebec continued to challenge his ideas, and his frustration mounted. Finally, to the astonishment of everyone present, Trudeau used the profane term une connerie to dismiss the notion that Quebec was the French-Canadian homeland. (Loosely translated, the word means “bullshit.”) Coming from the federal justice minister, the remark was a showstopper. Even Canadians sympathetic to Trudeau’s views on Quebec were jarred by it. “Mr. Trudeau has probably added to his own difficulties by allowing an element of professional intellectual arrogance to have crept into his speeches and his off-the-cuff answers to questions,” McGill law professor Edward McWhinney observed. “His description of the case for a particular constitutional status or associate state status for Quebec as connerie was at best inelegant.”70
Because the CBA press conference had taken place entirely in French, some English-Canadian pundits missed the significance of Trudeau’s recourse to profanity. Others judged his momentary lapse of propriety as evidence of his passion for national unity. Two days after Trudeau’s keynote address, the Toronto Star endorsed Trudeau’s bill of rights categorically. “Mr. Trudeau has now put his full weight behind the bicultural solution by proposing that the right of a Canadian ‘to learn and to use’ either English or French be put in a bill of rights and entrenched in the constitution,” said the Star. “We support this objective, believing that this country will not achieve unity unless French Canadians are convinced that all Canada, not just Quebec, is their homeland.”71 The Globe and Mail concurred. “It is good, while we ponder the privileges of collectivities, that a voice should be raised to remind us that all groups can claim dignity and worth only because they are composed of individuals,” said the Globe. “That is the meaning of citizenship without which Canada has no meaning.”72
In Quebec, on the other hand, Trudeau’s frontal attack on special status and his warning that Quebec would have to “back down” stoked the constitutional debate as nothing had since Charles de Gaulle’s “Vive” salute. Premier Daniel Johnson remarked that Trudeau’s attitude towards Q
uebec was now as “paternalistic” as John Diefenbaker’s. John Robarts’s forthcoming constitutional conference, Johnson warned, was now “the only hope that Canada will not blow up.”73 Johnson’s cultural affairs minister, outspoken Quebec nationalist Jean-Noël Tremblay, disparaged Trudeau’s views as “incomprehensible and illogical.”74 Several days later, Tremblay jolted Canadians by calling for a form of sovereignty-association. Quebec now had no choice but to write its own Constitution “consecrating the French-Canadian nation” and “building our national state,” he asserted. After that, a “new form of association” with the other Canadian provinces could be negotiated.75 Rumours swirled that separatists within Daniel Johnson’s government had prepared a secret document setting out a plan for Quebec’s secession from Canada.76 English Canadians rightly wondered how influential sovereignist ideas were in Daniel Johnson’s cabinet.77
Quebec Liberal leader Jean Lesage also reacted strongly to Trudeau’s CBA speech. Speaking to the Quebec Federation of Liberal Women, Lesage accused the minister of justice of being more out of step with Quebecers than ever. “By these declarations,” said Lesage, “Mr. Trudeau has proven that he does not accept the soundness of certain great principles to which the great majority of our compatriots adhere.”78 Lesage then took the surprising step of asking Premier Daniel Johnson for a rapprochement. “For the love of the French-Canadian, for the love of Quebec, I ask the leader of the Union Nationale for a truce between us on partisan politics on the constitutional question,” said Lesage. “We French Canadians must stop fighting among ourselves. We have got to show everyone the greatest possible unanimity on the constitutional question.”79 Lesage added that his party would never agree to Trudeau’s bill of rights, since “most of citizens’ rights fall under provincial jurisdiction.”80 Daniel Johnson was already on record as taking the same position.
Trudeaumania Page 11