What happened in London should be a pivot point for Canada and its politicians

In a speech in 2015, while reflecting on Canada's treatment of minorities, Justin Trudeau saidthat the inclusive idea of liberty that typifies the best of Canada "requires Canadian political leadership to be sustained."

Six years later, the killing of four members of a Muslim family in London, Ontario is a moment of reckoning for Canadians but also for this country's political leaders.

If it's necessary for Canadians to reflect on themselves and their country, it's equally necessary for politicians to consider what they could have done better in the past and what more they could do in the future.

Beyond framing an idea of "Canadian liberty," Trudeau used that speech six years ago to condemn the then-Conservative government's attempt to ban new Canadians from wearing theniqab while swearingthe oath ofcitizenship. And after reviewing that policy and the Conservative rhetoric around it, Trudeau invoked some of the most shameful events in Canadian history.

"This is not the spirit of Canadian liberty, my friends," he said. "It is the spirit of the Komagata Maru. Of the St. Louis. Of 'none is too many.'"

Much of the response to those remarks focused on Trudeau's choice of comparisons. Jason Kenney, the author of the niqab ban, said the Liberal leader had displayed "a grotesque lack of judgment."

How much haschanged since 2015?

Six years later, it might be harder to imagine a mainstream party proposing such a ban and easier to imagine observers agreeing with such historical comparisons. That might count as some small measureof progress.

But the 2015 election during which Stephen Harper also suggested he would consider extending the ban on the niqab to the public service was hardly the last word on anti-Muslimprejudicein Canada.

In 2017, there was Motion 103. Tabled by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, it asked the House of Commons to condemn Islamophobia and endorse a study of how the federal government could better combat racism and discrimination. It did not pass quietly or easily. Eighty-sixConservative MPs including current party leader Erin O'Toole voted against it.

WATCH: Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole addresses London vigil

O'Toole speaks to crowd at London, Ont., vigil in honour of Muslim family killed

3 years ago

Duration 1:37

Opposition Leader Erin O'Toole addresses a crowd in London, Ont., Tuesday evening at a vigil in honour of the Muslim family killed.

O'Toole's first response to the attack in London this week described it as an "Islamophobic act of terror." He used the word "Islamophobia" in his remarks to the House of Commons the next day.

Maybe that counts as some small measure of progress, too. But even if O'Toole appeared to turn a page this week, should politicians ever be allowed to move on so quietly?

Does he regret his vote on M-103? How does he feel now about what the previous Conservative government which he served asa cabinet minister said and did in regards to the niqab? What about that same government's talk of "barbaric cultural practices?"

The current moment would seem ripe for the Conservative leader to publicly reflect on those choices.But O'Tooleis not the only federal leader who faces questions right now.

Walking the fence on Bill 21

Trudeau put himself ahead of other leaders on the issue of the niqab when he delivered that speech in 2015. Unfortunately, it was possible then to think he had taken a political risk in so loudly criticizing the Harper government's ban.New Democrats ended up blaming their losses in that year's election in parton the fact that Tom Mulcair eventually wascompelled tocondemn the policy.

If Trudeau is ahead of his federal counterparts now on the matter of Quebec's Bill 21, which would ban public servants in the province from wearing religious headwear or symbols, he's not ahead by much.

O'Toole deferred to Quebec when he was asked about the so-called "secularism" law last September another thing he might be asked about now. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has criticized the billbut hasstopped short of saying agovernment led by himwould intervene.

Trudeau has criticized the billbut is still alone among federal leadersin sayingthat the federal government might someday need to participate in a legal challenge against it.

That wasn't much but then Trudeau seemed to move backwards this week. Asked by a reporter whether he thought Bill 21 "fosters hatred and discrimination," the prime minister responded, "No."

That answer demands an explanation not least because Trudeau has himself used the word "discrimination" when talking about Bill 21.

It's possible to imagine non-selfish arguments against the federal government officially interveninginBill 21 at this point.

There are politicians in Quebec who, no doubt, would relish the chance to turn this into a fight with Ottawa. If Bill 21 is to fall, it might be best if that defeat is clearly driven by Quebecers.

As one legal scholar has said, the precise role for the federal government in combating provincial laws is debatable (though if the billultimately is upheld because of Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause, Trudeau might need to think seriously about taking on the challenge of constitutional reform).

Refusing to engage doesn't let Trudeau off the hook

But declining to engage legally does not prevent a prime minister or any other federal leader from speaking clearly and forcefullyaboutproblems with provincial legislation. If anything, refusing to intervene only increases the already considerable responsibilitya prime minister bearsto combat hate and systemic racism in other ways.

The Trudeau government has things it can say for itself in that respect. Itdrafted an anti-racism strategy and put $45 million toward it. It hasput anemphasis on diversifying federal appointments.

The government is promising to table legislation soonaimed at cracking down on the online spread of hateful content though a fall election would at least push back theimplementation of such a bill. To the degree thatwords matter, Trudeau probably deserves somecreditfor rhetorical leadershipin recentdays and years.

But afterLondon, the questions worth askinghave to do with what more shouldbe done and why those things can't happen soon.Tragedy should never be a precondition for actionbut it can be a spurto redouble one's efforts. Itcreates moments that can be seizedto advance progress.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims has called on the prime minister to convene a national summit on Islamophobia that brings together representatives from all levels of government. The NCCM sayssuch a meeting would be "a start."

It might be hard to find a good reason notto convene such a gathering, even if it has to occur virtually.

"Canada is the way it is because Canadians built it to be that way," Trudeau said during that speech in 2015.

As Canadians reckon with the reality of their country, that statement might seem to have a double meaning both positive and negative.

But the case for deliberate effort and political leadership remains as sound now as it was then.