Trudeaus Vision for Canada - Essay Example

Trudeau’s vision for Canada affiliation Trudeau’s vision for Canada Born in the XX century, Pierre Trudeau was the fifteenth Canadian Prime Minister, but the first Canadian born Prime Minister in the century. He was a well renowned reformist who remains in the good books of many Canadians present during his reign as Prime Minister. He devoted his services to change the Constitution that governed Canada. His devotion to reforms made him an exceptional leader as many as referred to him as the light to the current free nation of Canada. He was the face of a new Canada to whom the citizens and voters could easily relate to. According to Cohen (2011), Trudeau was the national leader Canadians needed at the time. He further says that he put the interests of Canadians first before anything else he worked on. It is for this reason that he was reelected after failing to clinch the prime minster seat for the second time. As much as he faced much criticism from many Canadian French nationals, he proved that he only aimed at redeeming the nation of Canada. As an English Canadian, he was underrated by the majority population which was the French Canadians. On clinching the PM’s seat, he fulfilled his promise by delivering the change awaited on the Constitution. According to Jeffrey (2010), Trudeau’s worst enemy at his time was the current Constitution which suppressed the English Canadian nationals. In his words, Trudeau had the willingness to transform Canada to a more united nation regardless of the racial background. At the time, there was a fierce misunderstanding between the English Canadian nationals and the French Canadian nationals. Trudeau clearly mentioned the need of unity between all Canadian nationals. He also mentioned the effects of having racial difference in one nation. The consequences of this scenario were compared to countries like Rwanda. In other descriptions by Laforest (1995), Trudeau was described as a great nationalist. Some admirers’ also described him as an intellect leader. During his reign he protected the Canadian unity by standing against the Quebec group. The group wanted to be separated from the rest of Canada which Trudeau was against. Other achievements under his mantle were the opposition against violent revolution and the creation of the Charter of Freedom and Rights in the Canadian Constitution (Jeffrey, 2010). However, some critics questioned the government tactics followed by Trudeau. They accused him of mismanagement of finances and his persistent arrogance (Laforest, 1995). Some also accused him of favoring the federal government over the oil wealth in Prairies. Trudeau biggest challenge was to deal with the rising fears of separation and erosion of government powers. Particularly he attacked the Quebec individuals who were willing and having riots to force their separation from the other citizens. The Quebec was defined as the French Canadians. Trudeau had a wish of empowering this group through the empowerment of its vices in the government. According to Cohen (2011), this was the only way in which the group would feel wanted in the general Canadian population. This was Trudeau’s vision for Canada. He always wished for the blend between the French Canadians and the English Canadians. How did this quest affect the unity of Canada? What were the disadvantages faced with the federal system? Was Trudeau’s vision helpful or destructive to the Canadian nation? This paper will focus on how important Trudeau’s vision was. It will also focus on the importance of the vision to Canada. The vision of ending federalism by Trudeau was meant to make it comfortable for both the French Canadians and English Canadians. However, this quest was to come with a lot of criticism and consequences. The dream of transforming Canada into a federal nation was a long short for all parties involved. According to Laforest (1995), this system of governance would create a great rift between provinces in the west and provinces in the east. Generally, the inhabitants of the two sections were French Canadians and English Canadians respectively. There were fears that internal conflicts would arise. The cultural difference between these two Canadian groups brought about the conflicts. At the time French Canadians were viewed as more inferior to the English Canadians (Jeffrey, 2010). Many English Canadians felt that their rivals were being favored by the government. Some argued that most of the oil revenues in Canada were directed to French Canadians. English Canadians were left put on major decision by the government. They were not consulted on issue touching on division of resources or finance governance. It was at this point power rivalry became evident in Canada. The governance of federal governments in the provinces started to weaken the powers of the government. This is because some groups had a lot if influence in the central government than other groups. The federal system in the French Canadian side watched in suspicion as all the Quebec needs were satisfied and granted. However, this move was not enough to keep the Quebec satisfied. At this point, the government saw that there was no need to give the Quebec’s more power. However, this was not a free way for the French Canadians to have their rights respected. According to Montserrat (2007), French Canadians needed to work extra hard to develop their rights sensitivity and develop their culture. Additionally, French Canadians led by Trudeau felt that the central federal government should not transfer power to the provinces. He argued that the leaders in the provinces did not show quality governance of the powers and even appropriate management of resources. French Canadians felt that the Quebecs were misusing their powers to dominate over the French Canadians unfairly. Trudeau had a lot of enemies among the Quebec and a lot of friends outside them. He became an easy target for Quebec. However, this did not stop him from advocating the need for a Constitutional change and diminishing powers given to provinces. After he gained power, his first objective was to amend the Constitution, and he did it. This was a great disappointment to the Quebec who were almost powerless. According to Cohen (2011), different from his expectations, this change did not have positive results as he had forecasted. The move increased the height of separatism in the province. Consequently by 1979, his labors to change the Constitution in the course amended in 1965 had negative outcome as all federal offers led to the now intensive attacks on a number of the provinces; the Constitutional procedure was turning out to be even more compound by the inclusion of western provinces in the dispute and by mounting restlessness of the Canadian population who desired to see their troubles and alarms tackled and their rights included into the Constitution (Cohen, 2011). In 1980, there was hope for change. In that year, the Quebec held a referendum which was to discuss their future in the province, and the natives of Quebec were requested to provide the permission to their provincial administration to negotiate sovereignty-association. As Trudeau had a rather modest role in the discussions taking place, he showed very publicly in the federalists’ gatherings, for the period of the referendum, and devoted himself and his administration to “transformed federalism.” The application of these terms in Quebec in the perspective of the referendum seemed to indicate a softening of rules, and a commitment to entrust the federal government to various forms of devolution and to a formal acknowledgment of the unique nature of Quebec in the Constitution (Jeffrey, 2010). The words expressed in Quebec a clear representation and have been chosen specifically to aggravate the positive response that it did in the end. However, with no specific promises made clear expectations were raised. The Constitution offered by Trudeau in 1981 was termed as a great loss and betrayal. The Quebec community was not slightly considered in the making of the Constitution. Not only had their rights and needs been included in the Constitution, but also the issue of governance in their province was not included. This meant and left the province completely isolated from the Constitution. Contrary to Trudeau’s wishes, the Levesque government refused to sign the Constitution into law. At this juncture, Trudeau found an escape route from his errors. He claimed that the government supported the Quebec separatists and it would never sign any Constitution him and his counter parts came up with. Additionally, he claimed that the Constitution was not against the Quebec but it would provide ore advantage to them than any other Canadian through the charter of rights and freedom. According to Laforest (1995), Trudeau’s aim in coming up with the charter of freedom and rights was to create a society of oneness and equality across the whole of Canada. Forwarding the events to 1998, the effects of the decisions made by Trudeau in the 80s were still visible (Bickerton, 2010). The province inhibited by the Quebec has never agreed to the laws created by Trudeau. The province has made the operations of the charter of freedom and rights not applicable in their laws. According to Montserrat (2007), the Quebec viewed the Charter of Freedom and Rights as insignificant in their lives. It is for this reason that the decisions and dreams by Trudeau became questionable. Many political analysts perceive his decisions as selfish claiming that he did not consider the needs of the Quebec whatsoever. In a political print, Jeffrey (2010) claimed that Trudeau disliked the Quebec society since the onset of his political career. In his defense, Trudeau always claimed that if the Charter of Freedom and Rights was fully implemented the results would have been different. The perception of the Quebec towards his political efforts created the most significant difference. Also in his defense, Cohen (2011) claims that Trudeau ambitions and dreams were not appropriately implemented. He further argues that if the Quebec were mainly concerned about the well being of Canada the repercussions would have been so much difference. The difference in culture between the two Canadian groups brought about the whole misunderstanding. With Trudeau not representing the Quebec, it was difficult for them to accept the implementations he made in the Constitution. The Quebec always feel that Trudeau ignored their rights and needs as natives different from his cultural background. Since 1982, all governments sworn in as Provincial Administration have declined to sign the Constitution. In that period, the total governments added up to six. They all proposed that some amendments be made on the Constitution before signing it into law. As this happened, the number of separatist and nationalist continued to grow significantly. The culture of separatism and nationalism command the majority of support from the French speaking Quebecers. These claims can be supported from the figure from past referendum where the separatists only lost with a one percent margin. In the provinces, the leadership role has been commanded by the Bloc Québécois which is a separatist party. In an argument by Bickerton (2010), the rising number of nationalists and separatists is a clear indication that the decisions launched by Trudeau were not correctly advised. As years passed, many Canadians are concluding that Trudeau was unfair towards the Quebecers. It is for this reason that the Quebecers are gaining sympathy and followers. As this happened, Trudeau’s significance in the field of politics became completely insignificant. However, he continued to offer sharp and strong criticism towards the separatists. Sometimes the criticisms were very rude and upset a great number of Canadians (Laforest, 1995). As this happened, he still stood by his dreams terming them as considerable. He also did not betray himself and remained truthful to himself. To date, he remained one of the most stern politicians that Canadians can be proud of. Unlike many politicians, Trudeau stood by his decisions and amendments. Trudeau’s dream of Canada, and of space of Quebec inside it, will always remain debatable. Throughout his political career his devotion for Canada was never doubted. The support of his programs which were aimed at uniting the French and English Canadians is still visible today. The programs are still adhered to by many citizens of Canada. The inclusion of basic rights and promotion of patriotism into the Constitution is supported by majority of Canadians. He fought for the inclusion of French speaking Canadians into federal governments. He also played a significant role in bridging the gap between the federal government and the Quebec. These two achievements were very significant. According to Montserrat (2007), they will forever remain milestones in the Canadian history. However, a closer insight into Canada leads to the conclusion that what was done was too little and sometimes too late. Within Trudeau there was a character committed and ready to bring change to Canada. In words by Jeffrey (2010), this was the greatest trait of a leader he portrayed. However, he also portrayed a character that hated and detested correction and compromise. He also had a habit of disregarding his opponents’ views whenever they differed from his point of view (Bickerton, 2010). He is termed as the most rational political leader who sometimes was very crude and rude. He never showed respect or showed very little respect to people who did not agree with him. But with time, Canadians will be able to have a clear picture on whether he is the recipe of all the problems Canada is going through or what he did was logical and appropriate. References Bickerton, J. (2010). Canadian politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Cohen, A. (2011). Trudeau’s shadow: The life and legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Toronto: Random House of Canada. Jeffrey, B. (2010). Divided loyalties: the liberal party of Canada, 1984- 2008. Toronto: Toronto University Press. Laforest, G. (1995). Trudeau and the end of a Canadian dream. Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press. Montserrat, M. (2007). The identity of Nations. Cambridge: Polity Press. Read More