Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros95The francophone strategy of Brian...

Résumés

Si les années 1970 ont été marquées par la politique de multiculturalisme adoptée par Pierre Trudeau, la question québécoise a été abordée avec prudence sur fond de revendications de souveraineté de cette province. Cette question n’a pas seulement concerné la politique intérieure, mais s’est également posée sur le plan international, le Québec ayant été associé, par exemple, aux débuts de l’organisation de la Francophonie après le traité de Niamey (20 mars 1970). L’objectif de cette contribution est d’analyser la manière dont Brian Mulroney lui-même a perçu ce positionnement du Canada dans la Francophonie pour éviter d’une part la délégitimation de la politique multiculturaliste initiée dans les années 1970 et reconnaître d’autre part la spécificité culturelle de la province de Québec. Fondés sur l’étude des mémoires de Brian Mulroney et sur les méthodologies de l’analyse du discours, les résultats montrent que l’auteur a adopté un ethos de réconciliation, soucieux de retrouver une identité canadienne profondément attachée au Commonwealth et à la Francophonie. Cet ethos s’oppose à celui de Pierre Trudeau, dont les actions politiques et diplomatiques sont jugées négativement par Brian Mulroney. Le positionnement sur la question francophone est au cœur de ce désaccord fondamental, qui explique en même temps la nouvelle action diplomatique de Brian Mulroney en faveur d’une francophonie plus politique et en faveur de nouveaux accords constitutionnels pour corriger la conception du multiculturalisme de Pierre Trudeau.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1In an interview given at the CTV News Channel Television on 15 September 2021, the 18th Prime Minister of Canada between 1984 and 1993, Brian Mulroney, listed his own political success:

Well I need to kind of trust certain realizations of my own government, the Meech Accords which wanted the integration of Quebec inside the constitution after the exclusion of Quebec in 1982. The creation with the president of the French Republic, François Mitterrand, the creation of the Summit of the Francophonie to enable finally, and I’m saying finally here after a 20-year blockage which will finally let Quebec emancipate itself on the international stage, and that’s what happened in favor of Quebec. The acid rain treaty in the US, the cleaning up of the St. Laurent, the liberation of Nelson Mandela, and the destruction of the apartheid system in South Africa which left the Black population in servitude for 55 years. (CTV News 2021)

2It is interesting to note that this list includes issues relating mainly to foreign policy, with the creation of Francophonie summits giving this organization a stronger diplomatic dimension (Premat, 2018: 78). Brian Mulroney recalls a difficult domestic context, with strong assertions of a Quebec identity on the one hand, and the need to complete Canada’s constitutional work on the other. In his memoirs, he describes this tension in the following terms:

I feel that the above facts are indicative of a situation which could result in a real threat to Confederation. Quebec has had separatist movements before. They have appeared in the past especially during times of economic or political crisis. What makes this current resurgence so dangerous, however, is that in a period of relative prosperity the movement for an independent Quebec is succeeding in building a province-wide grassroots organization awaiting only the “opportune moment” to swing into political action (MULRONEY 2007, 65).

3In these remarks, it is relevant to have in mind the political context preceding Brian Mulroney’s coming to power, with the question of the “patriation” of the Canadian Constitution of 1982 and the discussions surrounding Pierre Trudeau’s action. The patriation broke the colonial past of Canada by transferring “the country’s highest law, the British North America Act (which was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867), from the authority of the British Parliament to Canada’s federal and provincial legislatures” (SHEPPARD 2020). Canada found itself in a situation of maximum tension with Quebec, especially since Pierre Trudeau had not kept the promises of reforming federalism he had made at the time of the referendum on Quebec sovereignty (HUDON 2017). There are two perceptions of Canadian federalism, with a unitary multiculturalist vision on the one hand and an associative vision based on a national biculturalism on the other (DYCK et al., 2017). Brian Mulroney’s room for maneuver seemed fairly limited and the aim of this article is to show how Brian Mulroney systematically initiated a diplomacy of balance by viewing the Francophonie as an instrument for recognizing cultural diversity in Canada. There is a need to analyze the way in which Mulroney himself perceived this positioning of Canada in the Francophonie to avoid on the one hand the delegitimization of the multiculturalist policy initiated in the 1970s and recognize on the other hand the cultural specificity of the province of Quebec. This positioning was much easier in the 1980s with the accession to power of François Mitterrand. The arrival of François Mitterrand rectified the Gaullist narrative of free Quebec in 1967, which had had consequences for the conflict between the province of Quebec and Canada.

4In order to be able to deepen this research question centered on the thoughts of a key leader in this context, Mulroney’s memoirs will be studied under this lens, as well as some specific interviews he gave after he left power (MULRONEY 2007). Brian Mulroney’s Francophone strategy can be understood in terms of both French-speaking Canadians and the construction of La Francophonie as an international organization. The two issues are intimately linked, as Canada’s place within the Francophonie has repercussions on the recognition of French-speaking Canadians.

Theoretical framework

5Studies on leadership clearly show the link between the room for maneuver of an individual caught up in major constraints and the notion of ethos, i.e. the self-image of the leader in question (BAUMEISTER 1982). Pierre Bourdieu has clearly shown how leaders construct their image according to the constraints of the political field in which they operate:

Political leaders are continually faced with the (often contradictory) practical imperatives which arise from the logic of the struggle within the political field, such as the need to prove their representativeness or the need to mobilize the greatest possible number of votes while at the same time asserting the irreducibility of their project to those of other leaders (BOURDIEU 2009, 246).

6In other words, leaders fulfil their expected role according to the circumstances and at the same time try to stand out by highlighting their insight and ability to act within these constraints. They often rely on the charismatic element to present themselves as leaders capable of resolving latent conflicts and defending the State with the Machiavellian sense of virtú (PAREL 1992). This is what Bourdieu calls the “distinctive deviation”, even if he proposes that the starting point for understanding the representativeness of leaders’ positions is the political field itself (BOURDIEU 2009, 177). In a previous interview, Bourdieu linked the notion of habitus with the understanding of the rules of the game:

There is also, of course, the habitus, the regulated tendency to generate regulated behaviors apart from any reference to rules in societies in which the process of codification is not very advanced, the habitus is the source of most practices (LAMAISON et BOURDIEU 1986, 114)

7The difference between ethos and habitus lies in the fact that ethos is more of a posture, whereas habitus highlights long-term acquired dispositions (BOURDIEU 2002, 133; BÉDARD 2016; CHARAUDEAU, 2017). The habitus brings together a series of unconscious postures determined by the speaker’s social field, whereas the ethos is more concerned with the image that the speaker projects at a given moment in his/her discourse. For political leaders, habitus conditions the choice of political style, while ethos characterizes the contrast or similarity between the leader’s posture and his or her social positioning. In the present study, the aim is not to analyze a situational ethos in an interactional perspective. In fact, the study of the memoirs of a famous politician shows how he reinterprets his role in delicate historical circumstances or during difficult negotiations (AMOSSY 2014, 24). It is a question of studying a reconstructed ethos, i.e. a posture recalled and re-presented by the politician who distances himself from the historical moment, but who gives an a posteriori logic to his actions. At the same time, this approach needs to be complemented by work on the autobiographical pact, insofar as Mulroney’s memoirs function as an assemblage of diary entries, a posteriori reconstructions and confidences, albeit presented in chronological order. According to Philippe Lejeune, the pact could be defined in the following way: “Retrospective prose narrative written by a real person concerning his own existence, where the focus is his individual life, in particular the story of his personality” (LEJEUNE 1989, 4). In this configuration, the pact is made with an equivalence between the author, the narrator and the main character of the story.

Background

8Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada between 1984 and 1993. He became leader of the Conservative Party after defeating his rival Joe Clarke, and his ambition was to strengthen Canada as an important economic player in the world and as a moral power (HILMER 2021). He was born in the province of Quebec in 1939 in an Irish family, and the fact that he was a young Prime Minister (he was 44 when he came to power) gave him time to look back on this period in numerous interviews given on Canadian television. His trajectory is therefore ideal for understanding the various redefinitions of this reconstructed ethos. In 2022, he took part in a long interview in the CEO series with Karl Moore of McGill University, in which he went back over his career. In particular, he gave advice to young leaders, reminding them that between the ages of 25 and 55, a person must be capable of being at the top of his or her potentialities (MOORE 2022). This comment is typical of a leader who reflects on his own experience and reconstructs the logic behind it.

9The focus of this study is on the way in which Brian Mulroney worked to consolidate Canada’s important international position at the heart of both the Commonwealth and the Francophonie. It is the relationship between the perception of his role and the situation that is examined in his memoirs. Regarding the relation of Canada to the Francophonie institutions, it is here important to recall some important facts. Some Quebec activists such as the journalist Jean-Marc Léger were involved in the creation of the organization named the Agency of cultural and technical cooperation (ACCT) which was created the 20th of March 1970 (PREMAT 2018, 77). Jean-Marc Léger was the first general secretary of the Agency between 1969 and 1974 and was really involved in the promotion of the French language with some independentist views on the province of Quebec. The 1970s were problematic for Canada insofar as membership of La Francophonie was likely to strengthen Quebec’s sovereignist ambitions. In the province of Quebec, French Canadians have consistently asserted their minority rights in Canada since the creation of the Canadian confederation in 1867, and have stressed the fact that their demographical importance implies the need to strengthen the use of the French language. Bill 63 in 1969 encouraged children who already have an education in English to have similar knowledge in French; in 1974, under the leadership of Robert Bourassa, French became an official language for the province and in 1977, bill 101 imposed the learning of French with a full recognition of French language as a part of Quebec society (BEHIELS et al. 2023).

10In this context, the Quebec provincial government, which had been involved in the construction of the Francophone project with Jean-Marc Léger, entered into a rivalry with English-speaking Canada and did not fit into the multicultural framework proposed by Pierre Trudeau in 1971. Relations between Quebec and federal Canada also explain why the Francophone project did not take on a political dimension at its inception, the objectives being solely solidarity around the French language and culture. In fact, La Francophonie itself was presented as an agency to prevent the various possible political instrumentalizations from diminishing the potential of this cooperative venture (PREMAT 2018, 37). Pierre Trudeau was reluctant to support the project since the government of Quebec took part in the preliminary conferences of 1969 and he was at the origin of the compromise on the creation of Francophonie with the new structure (Agency for Cultural and Technical Cooperation). In other words, the government of Quebec could not take part in this organization without the approval of Canada (MORIN 1986, 87). This agency did not have a political profile, especially given the tensions between Canada and Quebec, until Brian Mulroney’s public interventions in 1984 and 1985 were hailed as a recognition of the cultural ties between Quebec and France and, more generally, the Francophonie. The Francophonie was given then a more political profile when the first summit was held in Versailles in 1986 (PHAN & GUILLOU 2011, 196-197).

Corpus and method

11Mulroney’s memoirs were published in 2007 and are one of the most interesting recent behind-the-scenes documents on Canadian politics. It contains 1174 pages and has had a fairly strong impact on the Canadian public, as can be seen from the many articles commenting on it. In 2007, they were considered as the 8th bestseller by The Daily Sentinel Review (2007, 15). In The Times-Colonist, the journalist summarized the autobiography of Mulroney in following terms:

the focus of Mulroney’s autobiography is on his nine years as prime minister from 1984 to 1993, including the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S., the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and failed attempts to achieve constitutional reform” (HARNETT 2007).

  • 1 Brian Mulroney defined himself this positioning in his personal journal on 24 February 1987: “We sp (...)

12Some other Canadian politicians published their memoirs in the beginning of the 1990s such as Lucien Bouchard, the premier of Québec between 1996 and 2001 and Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1995, the predecessor of Mulroney (BOUCHARD 1994; TRUDEAU 1995). The francophone strategy of Brian Mulroney can be evaluated in regard with the positioning of Canada in the Commonwealth1. The Memoirs are built on notes from Mulroney’s diary, and then contain comments, additions and reconstructions. These diary passages are italicized and lend a sense of authenticity, since they are intended to convey directly the opinion that Mulroney held at the time he was governing. As Philippe Lejeune explained, the diary illustrates the pact of truth that the author wants to sign:

the modern diary does not really become what it is until the day it begins to resemble the letter in that respect, when the date moves out of the field of the enunciated and into the field of the enunciation. Let me explain. In a letter or a legal document, the date not only specifies but also certifies the time of enunciation (LEJEUNE 2009, 79).

13The dates are important in that they give a time value to what is written, so that the reader has transparent access to the leader’s thinking when he was in action.

Findings and discussion

An ethos of reconciliation

14Brian Mulroney’s relationship with La Francophonie as an organization is due to his background. He was born in Baie-Comeau, a small city lying 450 kilometers north-east of Quebec City, and he always maintained a close relationship with the province of Quebec, graduating from Laval University. The word “Francophonie” appears 55 times in the memoirs. Brian Mulroney quoted some passages of his personal journal when he was commenting the summit of Francophonie held in Quebec City in 1987 (MULRONEY 2007, 57). The quotation introduces an effect of “discourse within the discourse” (LEJEUNE 1989, 9) where the writer can give accurate details on the appreciation of the importance of some particular events:

When I lived at 71 rue St-Louis, the role of Quebec and Canada – and the possible role of Quebec in an emerging and highly sympathetic Francophonie – was much debated by my fellow students. The Laval Congress on Canadian Affairs dealt with these same questions. It was therefore with some emotion that I returned to Quebec City some 27 years later, as prime minister of Canada, having reached a constitutional agreement with Quebec and having devised a formula that allowed Quebec to play an appropriate role in the Sommet de la Francophonie (MULRONEY 2007, 57)

15In this extract, Brian Mulroney looks back at the political climate in Quebec during the Quiet Revolution, evoking the university discussions on the construction of the Francophone project. He confronts the solemnity of the moment, the Francophonie summit as further proof of recognition of a bilingual Canada, with his personal memories to better appreciate its trajectory. In the autobiographical approach, the author makes the distinction between an intimate self (the relation to Quebec, his university years at Université Laval) and a public ethos when he became a public person as Prime Minister of Canada. In fact, the organization of the Francophonie summit is described as a diplomatic victory where people could meet to celebrate a solidarity around the French language:

Later that day at the official ceremonies I saw how deeply effective our policy of reconciliation had been. When at Laval, Clément Richard and Pierre de Bané had become close friends – I think they became law partners as well. De Bané entered federal politics and became a Liberal cabinet minister and later, a senator. Richard became a PQ cabinet minister and their friendship foundered, as I recall, quite acrimoniously, during the referendum debate and its aftermath. Friends had become enemies. I had always liked them both and had continued to enjoy their company over all these 27 years since law school. As Mila and I were saying goodbye to the Francophonie leaders following the official welcoming ceremonies, and just before we left the cordoned-off area, I looked across the square at two men who were waving at me and enthusiastically cheering on the official participants. I looked back and signaled my personal regards. It was Pierre de Bané and Clément Richard together. Enemies had become friends again. (MULRONEY 2007, 58)

16Clément Richard (1939-2022) and Pierre de Bané (1938-2019) were very active in Quebec politics and are presented as Mulroney’s friends. In the above text, they are initially presented as classmates studying law. This socialization within the university is then disrupted in the second sequence, where political rivalries drive them apart. Finally, the third section of the text shows how the issue of La Francophonie enabled them to overcome their political conflicts and rebuild their friendship. The memoirs contain precise descriptions of scenes where the ceremony enables important images to be frozen in their meaning. The anaphora (“I looked across the square…”, “I looked back”) contributes to build a feeling of satisfaction and nostalgia. Brian Mulroney likes to talk about the consistency of his career and his loyalty to his ideals and friends. These particular moments which are selected in the memoirs are called “epiphanies”, which means “remembered moments perceived to have significantly impacted the trajectory of a person’s life” (ELLIS et al. 2011, 275). There is almost a magic reconciliation expressed in the ceremony where an international event (Francophonie) could help two individuals to become friends again.

17The issue of La Francophonie is intrinsically linked to that of the status of the province of Quebec and to an appreciation of Canada’s bilingual and bicultural policies. It is from this perspective that Mulroney selects his memorabilia, showing his ties to leading Quebec political figures. Jean Lesage (1912-1980), the former Premier of Quebec between 1960 and 1966 is presented as a brilliant figure that Mulroney knew personally. Here again, by highlighting academic camaraderie, the politician’s aim in reconstructing his ethos is to underline his links to political figures important to the country and, above all, to show that he is capable of speaking to the different parts of Canada:

Jean Lesage was a brilliant leader. I believe his government was probably the most effective in modern Quebec history. Because of my friendly relationship with his son, Jules, a fellow law student, and his daughter, Marie, I met the premier, Mme Corinne Lesage, and their family quite often, including at several dinners at their summer residence at Lac-Beauport (MULRONEY 2007, 59).

18The privileged relationship with leading political figures is important in the ethos of the former Prime Minister. It is also a question of putting oneself above political quarrels to find a political voice of concord identified with the role of Prime Minister of Canada. This search for the personal story associated with the great story is in keeping with the storytelling of the autobiography genre.

19The Francophonie is one of the key elements in the perception of Canada’s cultural uniqueness. Brian Mulroney embodies this ethos of reconciliation based on sincere diplomatic action. It is not a question of presenting himself as a father of the nation, but rather as someone who picks up the pieces of past conflicts. His relationship with President Mitterrand symbolized an era of new Franco-Canadian relations as it is noted for the visit of President Mitterrand on the 31st May of 1987:

President Mitterrand arrived Monday morning and began a hectic and productive four-day Canadian tour. It was the first by a French president in 20 years. Charles de Gaulle’s thoughtless – though I expect well-planned – cry from a balcony in Montreal had effectively derailed Franco-Canadian relations and for two decades had rendered them either meaningless or turgid. Mitterrand’s ending comment in the House, “Vive le Canada”, was a fitting tribute to a refurbished relationship I happen to view as extremely significant for Canada. Mitterrand has been the principal architect of this revitalized relationship from the French side and I am most grateful to him for the sensitivity and cooperation (MULRONEY 2007, 306).

  • 2 Many articles recall the “infamous” expression of De Gaulle. See “N. Ireland fears for Biden’s gift (...)

20Here, the tone is always very respectful, particularly with regard to protocol and the importance of foreign heads of state. Mitterrand is presented as the “principal architect” of a restored relationship, with an ethos that corrects past statements. Mitterrand clearly distinguished himself from his distant predecessor Charles de Gaulle by recognizing Canada’s cultural diversity. The cry of “Vive le Canada” (Long live Canada) overrode the cry of “Vive le Québec libre2, and Mulroney faded into the background to underline the importance of the visit. At the same time, it should be made clear that De Gaulle’s statement in the past considerably complicated Pierre Trudeau’s task. It also undoubtedly explains how Brian Mulroney can assume the role of the man who reconciled France and Canada by giving impetus to the institutions of La Francophonie. In this manner, memoirs inevitably reflect the way authors discreetly justify or glorify their roles. Furthermore, in this quarrel over perceptions of the Canadian nation, whoever has the last word always has a significant advantage over the opponent. This correction of past statements is something that comes back to Mulroney’s mind, as if politics consisted of constantly seeking the right tone for the circumstances in order to avoid value judgements, particularism and secession. In the above passage, it is interesting to note the different facets of the self. On the one hand, Mulroney witnesses the visit and recalls his memories; on the other, he interjects his own comments (“though I expect well-planned”), inviting the reader to appreciate this analytical capacity. He speaks not only for himself but also for the Government of Canada, which gives him this positioning as a privileged witness (AMOSSY 2014, 23). Through a series of flashbacks, Mulroney returns several times to the portrait of Mitterrand and his relationship with Canada. He returned to that exclamation of “Vive le Canada”, which for him marked an important turning point in Franco-Canadian relations:

  • 3 At that time, Laurent Fabius was the Prime Minister in France under the presidency of Mitterrand.

I had never met Mitterrand, but had a positive impression of this long-time socialist leader because of his denunciation, at a Paris press conference, of General de Gaulle’s offensive “Vive le Québec libre” statement in Montreal in the summer of 1967. Fabius himself brought hearty rounds of applause from a crowd that gathered at a state dinner the night of his arrival when he ended his remarks by saying “Vive le Canada”. President Mitterrand had told Fabius, with whom I continue a very friendly relationship to this day, that I proposed to break the deadlock and lay the groundwork for a productive Canadian-French economic and political partnership (MULRONEY 2007, 333)3

  • 4 Lucien Bouchard confirmed the specific links between Fabius and Mulroney. “Few French officials had (...)

21Here again, the interpersonal relations between leaders is in the spotlight (on two levels, since Mulroney introduces himself first as a friend of Laurent Fabius before evoking his relationship with President Mitterrand)4. Respect for hierarchical levels is implicit here, as Mulroney pays tribute to the French President, who, along with Mulroney, has been the architect of this new relationship between France and Canada, overcoming this bilingual tension. In this rebuilt ethos, Mulroney is keen to demonstrate a practical intelligence in human relations, in order to build solid partnerships. In this passage, he emphasizes how this interpersonal relationship between leaders was essential to making the first Francophonie summit possible in 1986 in Versailles (MESZAROS et al. 2021). Thus, by showing that he was predisposed to value Canada’s bilingual heritage, Mulroney turned Canada’s membership of La Francophonie into an asset, helping to raise the country’s international profile. Mulroney quotes himself in the text, taking the most important passages from a speech that historically marked the relationship between France and Canada:

“The Canadian government intends to exercise all of its constitutional responsibilities in the field of international relations. Nevertheless, it considers it completely normal and desirable that the Quebec government maintain with France those relations justified by the cultural identity of the province of Quebec. Thus we recognize the legitimacy of privileged, direct relations between Paris and Quebec, as long as these relations respect federal institutions and involve subjects that do not conflict with federal jurisdiction. Quebec is an integral part of Canada, and she enriches Canada with her French culture. It is natural that Quebecers perceive your country as a partner in preserving and fostering their special character. We will follow these guiding principles, and we want to leave the rest to the common sense, loyalty, and maturity of the parties involved” (MULRONEY 2007, 333)

22Here we can observe an ethos that is very characteristic of Brian Mulroney: the search for balance with recognition of all parties involved in building consensus around La Francophonie. In the sentence above, Mulroney recites himself to emphasize the historical and diplomatic dimension of his speech, which combines emotion (cultural ties) and reason (respect for Canada’s institutions and federal construction). In the recent research on communication and public diplomacy, the positioning of the Self in the crossroads of emotion and reason is a powerful strategy to reach an agreement (GRAHAM 2014, 528). Mulroney takes care to emphasize the cultural specificity of Quebecers as a reminder of the importance of this heritage. The Memoirs retrace the preludes to the first summit la Francophonie in 1986, which ushered in a new age of institutional Francophonie. Mulroney reveals the behind-the-scenes construction of a summit, and how it was to involve the province of Quebec (MULRONEY 2007, 359). He quoted an extract of the letter that Lucien Bouchard, the ambassador of Canada in France, addressed him:

“I know that you are particularly pleased by the gestures that you have begun to make for Quebec. Among others, I am thinking, obviously, of the Francophonie Summit, which was made possible by the scope of your views on the blossoming of Quebec and on the crucial importance of its contribution to the Canadian identity. I see in this a catalyst for the global process that could lead to the formal adhesion of Quebec to a renewed Canada. At the end of the efforts that you have undertaken, there would thus be the recognition that the Québécois people have their own destiny, a destiny that they themselves would fully and freely assume in the heart of the Canadian confederation. This would be the ultimate reconciliation, the one that is closest to your heart – and that would mark out your place in history. I hope for this for all of us” (MULRONEY 2007, 412).

23A detour through a diplomatic letter addressed to him by an ambassador subtly demonstrates the recognition of his diplomatic action in favor of a new Canadian identity. This staging is characteristic of the style of these memoirs, in which details are transcribed with particular meticulousness. The passage through the discourse of others introduces an effect of legitimacy (the speaker’s power is implicitly confirmed) and an effect of solemnity (the experience of the moment is singular). The contents of this letter are interesting because they sum up Mulroney’s approach to international politics. In resolving what had been left undone by his predecessors, Mulroney reaffirmed an ethos of distinction with a deep understanding of this country’s issues and identity. Lucien Bouchard has also been a close friend of Brian Mulroney since his university days. He is mentioned 244 times in Mulroney’s memoirs, and Mulroney also cites Lucien Bouchard’s memoirs in an interplay of reflections, as if Lucien Bouchard were the alter ego, essential to the task of reconciliation (MULRONEY 2007, 91). Mulroney cites Bouchard in the following terms:

In his memoirs, On the Record, Bouchard accurately described those far-off days of our early friendship, “We came to know each other well”, Bouchard wrote, “talking and walking in the old town, he improving his French while I obstinately refused to speak English because I was paralyzed with shame because of my ignorance” (MULRONEY 2007, 91).

24The selection of this memory allows an implicit otherization (how the others perceived the “self”) in order to present the self in the most advantageous position. It reinforces the “office effect” (BOURDIEU 2014, 130) where the positioning of the actor is central in the understanding of the particular historical moment. Here, the subject does not speak for the others, it is the subject who is presented and spoken by the others, which emphasizes the recognition of the authenticity. Hence, the intimate relation between both friends reveals an authenticity and Mulroney is presented with a sincere intercultural curiosity. Bouchard also dealt with the memory of the first summit of Francophonie by underlining the prominent role of Mulroney:

The three-day summit conference would highlight the impetus Canada had given to a decision-oriented francophonie. I made sure that Mulroney would be giving an inaugural address at the solemn session at Versailles. He would also open the work of the first section on the international political situation (BOUCHARD 1994, 139)

25Lucien Bouchard described Mulroney throughout his memoirs showing a deep admiration for his political career. He interpreted the interest for Quebec as a way for Mulroney to revitalize his Irish roots:

Brian Mulroney is Irish to the bone. I am thinking not only of his charm, his sentimentality, and his passionate tenacity. In spite of his good humor, occasionally broken by impatient explosions, he knows injustice exists – and that for a very long time it struck his own people very harshly. I always thought that deep down he felt the same way as a French-speaking Québécois would if he lost his language and his country. Deprived of primordial loyalties, he stood alone to realize his dreams and aspirations. For such a person, apart from faith in oneself, the most vital and precious things are family and friends who have inherited the obligations and the privileges of the clan (BOUCHARD 1994, 36).

26This passage is a little curious, as Bouchard seemed to be showing how Mulroney’s interest in Quebec stemmed from his Irish roots, and in the process exposed a stereotype discreetly linking Irish habitus to clan loyalty. A closer look at the vocabulary of Mulroney’s memoirs reveals 75 terms linked to this ethic of loyalty (the word appears mainly as an adjective and adverb in the text). However, Mulroney takes the advantage of publishing his memoirs later than those of Bouchard and this is why he has the privilege of correcting inaccuracies found in Bouchard’s statements:

  • 5 Péquistes here means supporters of the Parti Québécois who advocate for an independency of Quebec.

Contrary to what Lucien Bouchard affirms in his memoirs, it is therefore well before the tabling of the report drafted by Jean Charest that he decided to send a most compromising message to the national council of the Parti Québécois. As he knew the Péquistes5 were going to profit from this event to underline the tenth anniversary of the 1980 referendum, his text had to invoke this episode and have a clear political objective. The tabling of the Charest report on May 17 constituted nothing more than a further pretext designed to allow Lucien Bouchard to break with Brian Mulroney (MULRONEY 2007, 752-753).

  • 6 It is interesting to read the passages of the memoirs of Lucien Bouchard on the interpretation of t (...)

27In the passage above, Mulroney comments on the ups and downs at the end of his last mandate, when he tried to negotiate a new constitutional status. He corrects what is written by Lucien Bouchard to reveal a posteriori an ethos of authenticity with the indirect denunciation of backroom deals. His assessment is important insofar as he wants to highlight the way in which this agreement was trapped by internal political quarrels6. This posture inevitably favors the person who writes his memoirs last, because he has the privilege of giving his version after those of others.

28In addition, we find the way Mulroney constructs his portraits, depicting the bonds of friendship based on intimate events. In his memoirs, he has a way of placing his friends and family at the center to make a stronger statement about his identity. One example is his meeting with Paul and Jackie Desmarais, who went on to become one of Canada’s best-known entrepreneurs.

29They were effortlessly bilingual, well informed, and intellectually curious […]. That night sparked a wonderful friendship that has grown and endured for more than forty years. Outside my immediate family, no one has been closer or kinder to me and Mila than Jackie and Paul, and no one has benefited more than I from their good judgment and support – given generously and loyally at every crucial moment of my career – both in victory and defeat, in good times and bad (MULRONEY 2007, 124).

  • 7 Robertson, a distinguished civil servant in the 1970s, wrote in his memoirs that Trudeau had vis-à- (...)

30The proximity between the adverbs “loyally” and “generously” reveals how Mulroney cherishes the links of long-term friendship. In fact, his memoirs become an opportunity to pay tribute to all these close family friends, so there is indeed a Mulroney clan that is rewarded here for its loyalty. He also pays attention to the bilingual skills of his friends to illustrate this necessary mutual understanding between French and English Canadians. This perception of the bonds of deep friendship serves as a guiding thread in the construction of this ethos of reconciliation. Only those who can hear and see Canada’s bilingual and multicultural profile can serve it. The construction of this portrait is at the service of the rebuilt ethos of the Prime Minister of Canada. On the other hand, while the memoirs value temperament and friendships, Mulroney’s ethos is presented as antithetical to that of Pierre Trudeau, the troublesome predecessor with whom Mulroney displays complete political and personal disagreement (ROBERTSON 2000, 339)7.

The anti-Trudeau ethos

31Pierre Trudeau (1919-2000), the former Prime Minister of Canada between 1968 and 1979 and between 1980 and 1984, appears 373 times in the memoirs. Beyond the opposition of style, it is the perception of Canada that is at stake, and in particular the question of the relationship between Quebecers and Canadians. The two politicians’ philosophies are radically opposed, with Pierre Trudeau neither trusting nor liking the idea of two distinct nations within the Canadian Confederation. Mulroney, on the other hand, is capable of nuance, emphasizing his knowledge of Quebec affairs and his links with Quebec MPs:

In fact – and this is key to understanding the issue – most French-speaking Quebecers are “nationalists” to some significant degree; some are federalist nationalists, some are separatist nationalists (MULRONEY 2007, 513).

32Pierre Trudeau drew up his multiculturalism policy in 1971 to contain the demands of Quebecers and put them into perspective by supporting all cultural minorities. Multiculturalism does not aim to achieve national unity, but rather to emphasize a sense of belonging to a multicultural whole (GAGNON & IACOVINO 2007; McROBERTS 2019, 117-119). Mulroney’s position is close to that of interculturalism, which consists in understanding Canadian unity in terms of two distinct nations and cultural minorities (GAGNON & IACOVINO 2007, 97-99; PROULX-CHÉNARD 2021). The question of francophonie is deeply linked to this intercultural approach as Mulroney perceived the originality of Canada in the double belonging to Francophonie and Commonwealth. Bilingualism was not only a question of national prestige; it highlighted the specificity of Canada in the world. The Meech Lake Accord was the attempt to strengthen national ties through the recognition of the bicultural specificity of Canada as opposed to the vision of Pierre Trudeau (CAMPBELL 1991, 129).

Pierre Trudeau’s confrontational approach to federal-provincial relations – and Canada-Quebec – France relations in particular – had held up the creation of a French-speaking commonwealth of nations (what was later to become La Francophonie) for too long. That evening I made my views known (MULRONEY 2007, 333).

33There is a permanent comparison with the legacy of Pierre Trudeau with a contrastive positioning throughout the memoirs. Clearly, the failure of the Meech Lake Accord weighs heavily on Mulroney’s balance sheet, and he no doubt sees in his predecessor’s actions a desire to destroy the patient effort to build political unity in Canada. Robertson confirmed in his memoirs the efforts of Pierre Trudeau to avoid this agreement (ROBERTSON 2000, 341). This immense frustration is understandable insofar as Mulroney could have brought about a lasting resolution to the conflict between French and English Canadians (DYCK et al. 2017, 206):

“This will be an important meeting,”, I wrote to the premiers. “It will be the first time since the patriation of the Constitution on April, 17, 1982 that all first ministers meet to turn their undivided attention to the constitutional concerns that have led Quebec to abstain from full participation in Canada’s constitutional evolution” (MULRONEY 2007, 517)

34In order to restore coherence to the narrative, the autobiography uses documents (letters, exchanges, conversations) to show how this event was perceived. In this self-narrative, the author takes care to show that he was not aware at the time of the importance of what was being prepared. Then, seeing that things could take a very important turn in Canadian history, Mulroney carefully describes the choice of locations for this unprecedented constitutional agreement:

I decided to hold the meetings some twenty miles out of Ottawa at beautiful Willson House, a recently refurbished government facility on a promontory overlooking Meech Lake. Built in 1907, it is a perfect example of the summer retreats created by members of the upper class during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The federal government had purchased the estate in 1979 with the idea that it could be used as a government retreat in the manner of Camp David, where, for example, Jimmy Carter brought Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel together to negotiate toward peace in the Middle East (MULRONEY 2007, 519).

35The year 1987 was therefore essential in Mulroney’s mandate, both because Canada participated fully with Quebec in the Francophonie, and because the new context allowed him to move forward on the Quebec question, to avoid turning it into a point of tension. In the following passage, we can see how Quebecers have turned the page on Trudeau, seen as a leader of the past without credibility:

It was clear that Quebecers were responding to my call as the summer came to a close. Like Canadians in all regions and provinces, they were tired of the confrontations that had defined so much the Trudeau era. While Trudeau kept a low profile during the campaign, he did raise his head briefly, and graciously took the time to accuse me of leading ‘an unholy alliance of malcontents’ during a speech at a Montreal church. Quebecers, I knew, realized by now that Trudeau was really gone. It was time to look forward (MULRONEY 2007, 307).

  • 8 The word “player” is often used by Mulroney in his interviews (MOORE 2022) when he refers to the in (...)

36This comment is essential, as it contrasts Brian Mulroney’s noble attitude with Trudeau’s vindictive temperament. This difference in style is not simply a matter of distinction from his predecessor, which is a fairly classic feature of power relations. For Mulroney, there is a major ideological difference in the perception of Canadian unity. Trudeau designed Canada’s multiculturalism to weaken Quebec’s aspirations, creating de facto separatist aspirations in that province. For Mulroney, political negotiation means finding strong compromises with all the players8.

Trudeau should never have patriated the Constitution without securing reciprocal protection for language minorities, but he was so obsessed with patriation that he threw everything, including caution, out the window and gave the provinces a new lethal weapon called the notwithstanding clause. The clause crippled individual rights and undermined the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada. Moreover, having proceeded without Quebec, he ensured that any attempt to bring Quebec in on honourable terms could be scuttled by denouncing it as a ‘sellout’ to Quebec, thereby ensuring its repudiation by English-speaking Canada. Having failed miserably to unite Canada through constitutional reform, Trudeau is resolved that none of his successors should succeed, lest his failure be exposed for the horrendous one it is. (MULRONEY 2007, 683).

37The text above is included in the journal of Mulroney (1st October 1989) and means that it transcribes what Mulroney felt at that time. The charge is violent, as it contains a harsh judgment of Trudeau’s actions. The adverb “miserably” reveals the deep hostility of Mulroney vis-à-vis Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau is accused of sabotaging all subsequent agreements in order to conceal his own incompetence. In this anti-Trudeau ethos, we sense Mulroney’s resentment, especially for the Meech Lake agreement, which would have changed the face of Canada. The accusation of Mulroney echoes to the ones of Trudeau in his own memoirs:

Indeed one can say that when Mulroney chose to reopen the constitution in 1984 by making certain political speeches, there was a good and a bad side to it. The good side was it could be interpreted as wanting to put together the “‘politicians’ package”, now that the “people’s package” had been delivered in 1982. But the bad side was that instead of proceeding that way, the government chose to question the legitimacy of the 1982 patriation, even though it had been done strictly according to the rules defined by the Supreme Court. The Mulroney government played right into the hands of the Quebec nationalists by saying that in 1982 Quebec had been unfairly treated, even insulted and humiliated: that titled the playing field in favour of the provinces (TRUDEAU 1995, 362).

  • 9 The article “Mitterrand closing a wound in Canada” recalls this radical difference of views on the (...)

38Mulroney does not need to quote Trudeau’s memoirs as his own memoirs are a reaction against the politics of Trudeau and his approach in terms of multiculturalism (JEDWAB 2020). Pierre Trudeau was more in favor of a symmetric federalism whereas Mulroney opted for the asymmetric federalism (DYCK et al. 2017, 106). Symmetric federalism means that all the provinces have equal rights whereas asymmetric federalism means that the province of Quebec has other privileges. In other words, the narrative of the asymmetric federalism is guided by the idea that Canada recognizes two founding nations. The narrative is not the same here and this difference of perception was clearly at the heart of the conflict that opposed Brian Mulroney to Pierre Trudeau9.

39Mulroney and Trudeau have a radically opposed approach to Canadian unity, which explains why Mulroney has distanced himself from Trudeau’s multicultural, centralized vision. In this vision of Canada, the Francophonie and the Commonwealth have a special place, symbolizing the two sides of Canada for Brian Mulroney, while Pierre Trudeau perceived the idea of a multicultural country gradually emancipating itself from the tutelage of its cultural heritage.

Conclusion

40Brian Mulroney’s international action was not limited to integrating Canada into the Francophonie. He has a fighting ethos, attempting the most difficult negotiations to enhance Canada’s international image. Indeed, it should not be forgotten that Nelson Mandela paid tribute to Brian Mulroney’s convictions by choosing Canada for his first official visit as South African President. Mulroney’s memoirs are full of interesting details about his steadfastness, even in the face of Margaret Thatcher, who did not wish to ostracize South Africa from the international community (MULRONEY 2007, 582). The taste for tough negotiations shaped a particular ethos as Brian Mulroney seems to be guided by a sense of reconciliation, correcting years of cultural confrontation between French and English Canadians. The francophone question has been central to the evolution of Canadian politics, and Mulroney has always shown an interest in recognizing this biculturalism. Having Canada as member of both the Commonwealth and the Francophonie is an asset in globalization. Mulroney looks back at how his cooperation with President Mitterrand helped to forge a new relationship. At the same time, we cannot help thinking that Brian Mulroney benefited from the political changeover in France to create the conditions for this narrative of reconciliation, something that Pierre Trudeau was unable to do when he had to manage the country in a state of tension over the status of the province of Quebec.

41Mulroney was keen to strengthen the links between the federal government and the various provinces, in the service of an assumed bicultural vision. The Memoirs also reveal a certain sadness that the Meech Lake Accord failed to come to fruition, as it would have enabled Canada to constitutionally transcend its internal conflicts. In terms of ethos, the Memoirs reveal an important imaginary of loyalty. On the other hand, the perception of political leadership reveals an ethos antagonistic to that of Pierre Trudeau, perceived as confrontational. The autobiographical pact proposed by Mulroney is made to explain the vision of his leadership and his conception of the Canadian nation. In the end, political memoirs shed a profound light on the construction of ideologies (LEJEUNE 1989, 120). In the memoir genre, there is a solemn act of engraving an ideological position.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Corpus

BOONE, M. 2007. “Tory time at the bookstore: Former prime minister is back and he’s peddling a whopper.” The Gazette, 19September. https://ezp.sub.su.se/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/tory-time-at-bookstore-former-prime-minister-is/docview/434544313/se-2

HARNETT, C. E. 2007. “The life of brian -- as told by brian.” Times – Colonist, 26September. https://ezp.sub.su.se/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/life-brian-as-told/docview/348118299/se-2

MULRONEY, B. 2007. Memoirs 1939-1993. Toronto: M&S.

The Daily Sentinel Review. 2007. Top 10 bestsellers. https://ezp.sub.su.se/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/top-10-bestsellers/docview/2178441387/se-2

References

AMOSSY, R. 2014. « L’éthos et ses doubles contemporains. Perspectives disciplinaires ». Langage et société 149 : 13-30.

BAUMEISTER, R. F. 1982. “A Self-Presentational View of Social Phenomena.” Psychological Bulleti 91 (1) : 3-26.

BÉDARD, P. 2016. « L’éthos en sociologie : perspectives de recherche pour un concept toujours fertile ». Cahiers de recherche sociologique 59‑60 : 259‑276. https://doi.org/10.7202/1036797ar

BEHIELS, M., & Hudon, R. 2023. Bill 101 Charter of the French Language. The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/bill-101

BOUCHARD, L. 1994. On the Record. Toronto: Stoddart.

BOURDIEU, P. 2002. Questions de sociologie. Paris : Minuit.

BOURDIEU, P. 2014. On the State: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1989 - 1992 P. Champagne, R. Lenoir, F. Poupeau, & M.-C. Rivière, Red.; D. Fernbach, Övers. Cambridge: Polity.

BOURDIEU, P., THOMPSON, J. B., & RAYMOND, G. 2009. Language and Symbolic Power. Polity Press.

BURNS, John F. 1987. “Mitterrand closing a wound in Canada.” The New York Times, 28 May, Section A, Page 3. Retrieved from Nexis Uni, 30 November 2023.

CAMPBELL, K. 17-20 April 1991. “Federalism and International Relations: The Canadian Experience.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting 85: 125-131.

CHARAUDEAU, P. 2017. Le débat public. Entre controverse et polémique. Enjeu de vérité, enjeu de pouvoir. Limoges : Lambert-Lucas.

CTV News Channel Television. 2021. “Mulroney Speaks at O’Toole Rally”. 15 September 2021. Retrieved from Nexis Uni, 29 June 2023.

DYCK, R., COCHRANE, C., & BLIDOOK, K. 2017. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches. Eighth edition. Nelson Education.

ELLIS, C., ADAMS, T. E., & BOCHNER, A. P. 2011. “Autoethnography: An Overview.” Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung 36 (4): 273–290. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23032294

GAGNON, A., & IACOVINO, R. 2007. Federalism, Citizenship, and Quebec: Debating Multinationalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

GRAHAM, S. E. December 2014. “Emotion and Public Diplomacy: Dispositions in International Communications, Dialogue and Persuasion.” International Studies Review 16 (4): 522-539.

HILLMER, N. 2021. “Brian Mulroney.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/brian-mulroney

HUDON, R. 2017. “Québec Referendum 1980.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-referendum-1980

JEDWAB, J. 2020. “Multiculturalism.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/multiculturalism

LAMAISON, P. & BOURDIEU, P. 1986. « From Rules to Strategies: An Interview with Pierre Bourdieu.” Cultural Anthropology 1: 110-120.

LEJEUNE, P. 2009. On Diary. Honolulu: Published for the Biographical Research Center by the University of Hawaiʻi Press.

LEJEUNE, P., & EAKIN, P. J. 1989. On Autobiography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McROBERTS, K. 2019. Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle for National Unity. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MESZAROS, T., DANG, H. & DUREZ, A. 2021. « L’émergence historique d’une Francophonie politique et normative : du Sommet de Versailles au Sommet de Chaillot 1986-1991 ». Relations internationales 188 : 107-124. https://doi.org/10.3917/ri.188.0107

MOORE, K. 2022. Brian Mulroney, former Prime Minister of Canada. CEO series with McGill’s Karl Moore. October 31. 55 minutes.

MORIN, J.Y. 1986. « Le premier Sommet de la Communauté francophone ». Revue Québécoise de droit international 3: 79-131.

PAREL, A. J. 1992. “Virtù.” In The Machiavellian Cosmos, 86–100. New Haven: Yale University Press.

PHAN, T., Guillou, M. 2011. Francophonie et mondialisation. Tome 1 : Histoire et institutions des origines à nos jours. Paris : Belin.

PREMAT, C. 2018. Pour une généalogie critique de la Francophonie. Stockholm : Stockholm University Press.

PROULX-CHÉNARD, S. 2021. “Interculturalism.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/interculturalisme

ROBERTSON, G. 2000. Memoirs of a Very Civil Servant: Mackenzie King to Pierre Trudeau. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

SHEPPARD, R. 2020. “Patriation of the Constitution.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/patriation-of-the-constitution

TRUDEAU, P. E. 1995. Memoirs. Trade paperback ed. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Brian Mulroney defined himself this positioning in his personal journal on 24 February 1987: “We spoke French throughout and touched on questions ranging from native rights in Canada to our vigorous role in the Commonwealth vis-à-vis South Africa” (MULRONEY 2007, 13)

2 Many articles recall the “infamous” expression of De Gaulle. See “N. Ireland fears for Biden’s gift of the gaffe”, Edmonton Sun 2023.

3 At that time, Laurent Fabius was the Prime Minister in France under the presidency of Mitterrand.

4 Lucien Bouchard confirmed the specific links between Fabius and Mulroney. “Few French officials had actually met him, except for President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Fabius. The latter reportedly fell under the Mulroney charm during his trip to Ottawa the previous year. As for the president, he told me himself that he had been struck, during the Bonn economic summit, by Mulroney’s good-will and open-mindedness” (BOUCHARD 1994, 139).

5 Péquistes here means supporters of the Parti Québécois who advocate for an independency of Quebec.

6 It is interesting to read the passages of the memoirs of Lucien Bouchard on the interpretation of the sequence. “Returning to the Charest report, I said I could not accept it and that this was the reason for my resignation. He replied that there were no serious grounds for my resignation [...]. I had mentioned Trudeau in the letter, recalling that when he was remodeling the Constitution to suit himself, in 1981, he had not dared include the clause on the promotion of bilingualism, yet Mulroney was ready to do so in the wake of the Charest report” (BOUCHARD 1994, 241).

7 Robertson, a distinguished civil servant in the 1970s, wrote in his memoirs that Trudeau had vis-à-vis Mulroney “a contempt equalled only by that he held for Robert Bourassa” (ROBERTSON 2000, 341).

8 The word “player” is often used by Mulroney in his interviews (MOORE 2022) when he refers to the international role of Canada (for the economic agreements but also for the diplomacy.

9 The article “Mitterrand closing a wound in Canada” recalls this radical difference of views on the relation between the province of Quebec and Canada: “Mr. Trudeau described Mr. Mulroney as a ‘weakling’ and a ‘sly fox’ for agreeing to special status for Quebec, as well as to a range of constitutional concessions to the other provinces, which the former Prime Minister said would put the country ‘on the fast track’ to a breakup, or at least to permanent enfeeblement” (BURNS 1987).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Christophe Premat, « The francophone strategy of Brian Mulroney »Études canadiennes / Canadian Studies, 95 | 2023, 73-94.

Référence électronique

Christophe Premat, « The francophone strategy of Brian Mulroney »Études canadiennes / Canadian Studies [En ligne], 95 | 2023, mis en ligne le 31 décembre 2023, consulté le 18 juillet 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/eccs/6726 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/eccs.6726

Haut de page

Auteur

Christophe Premat

Christophe Premat is an Associate Professor in French with a major specialization in Cultural Studies at Stockholm University. He is a member of the editorial board of the review Sens Public, an international web journal of social sciences and he is the co-editor in chief of The Nordic Journal of Francophone Studies. His current research focuses on discourse analysis and Native Studies in Canada. He is the head of the Centre for Canadian Studies at Stockholm University and published in 2019 “The survivance in the Literature of the First Nations in Canada”, in Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture, vol. 9: 75-92 and in 2018 “Mémoire et survivance dans Kuessipan de Naomi Fontaine et Comment je perçois la vie, grand-mère de Rita Mestokosho” in Nouvelles études francophones, vol. 33, n. 2: 91-107.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search