That's a great question. I won't answer it successfully because I want to keep it short, as you asked. Maybe the best way is to just challenge the premise of your question.
The essence of the American system of religious liberty can be misunderstood if you focus on the separation of church and state. That phrase is nowhere, as you probably know, in the American constitution. It is correct insofar as it means an institutional separation of church and state. In other words, they can't be unified; there can't be an establishment of religion in our system.
The genius of our system, in my opinion, is to invite religion into the public square. Religion in politics—Islam in politics, Judaism, Christianity, all the rest—is what is under threat in my country at the moment, and which, in my view, endangers lots of people and lots of views, and includes the issue that we're talking about.
My answer to your question is that Canada and all western democracies should not focus on removing religion from the public square as their definition of “religion” and “religious freedom”, but invite it in within the norms of the society. This is being re-examined in France, as you may know. The whole notion of laïcité is to bring religion back in, to invite religious actors in.
That's my answer. It's not separation of religion from politics. It is separation of church and state, but it's inviting religion into the public square to be involved on the basis of equality with all other voices.