In November 2020, Liberal MP for Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, created an uproar by challenging the idea that French was in decline in Quebec. The young MP, elected in a by-election after the departure of Stéphane Dion from active politics, had committed the unforgivable before the Standing Committee on Official Languages in Ottawa by raising this question, which came at a bad time for the Liberal Party. of Canada (PLC). At the same time, Justin Trudeau was courting French-speaking Quebecers by promising them asymmetrical protection of official languages in minority situations and recognition of the special situation of French in North America. Mme Lambropoulos had even had to resign from his seat on the Committee for having broken the omerta that then prevailed within the PLC on the presumed decline of French in Quebec.
Could the tide be turning? The output, this week, in the pages of To have toLiberal MPs Anthony Housefather, Marc Garneau, Patricia Lattanzio and Francis Scarpaleggia against the Act respecting the official and common language of Quebec, French (“Law 96”), the day after its adoption Tuesday in the National Assembly, testified to the concern that is gaining the ranks of the federal Liberals at a time when the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ) is facing the discontent of English-speaking voters.
Many Anglophones in Quebec feel abandoned by the PLQ of Dominique Anglade, which dithered for a long time before finally voting against the reform of the Charter of the French language of the government of the Coalition avenir Québec. While the launch of two new political parties dedicated to protecting the rights of the English-speaking minority does not seem to threaten the PLQ in its English-speaking strongholds for the moment, the approach of the Quebec elections in October will force Mme Anglade to concentrate his efforts there in order to save the furniture in an electoral campaign which promises to be otherwise disastrous for his political party.
Intervention against the new law by PLC deputies who represent anglophone and allophone constituencies would only be the tip of the iceberg. Many of their colleagues in English Canada are outraged by what they see as another violation of Quebec’s minority rights by the CAQ government, after the State Secularism Act (“Bill 21”). In the rest of Canada, editorial writers and columnists are almost unanimous in their condemnation of the two Quebec laws and the weakness of the response of the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau to the preventive use of the notwithstanding clause by the government of François Legault. to shield these laws from the courts.
We notice a clear hardening in the opinion of Canadian elites towards Quebec. According to them, it is the very meaning of Canada that is threatened with the repeated flouting of fundamental rights by the government of Mr. Legault.
Mr. Trudeau could not remain indifferent to these criticisms forever. Federal Justice Minister David Lametti’s announcement Wednesday that Ottawa intends to intervene in the legal challenge to the secularism law when it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada sort of the beginning of a new era in federal-provincial relations after a long period of relaxation.
With the decision Thursday of the English-Montreal School Board to challenge “Bill 96”, we can expect that Ottawa will also support it in its efforts. “We have concerns about the pre-emptive use of the ‘escape clause’,” Mr. Lametti insisted. It was [censé] be the last word in the dialogue between the courts and [les assemblées législatives], not the first word. And when it’s used as the first word, it cuts off the political debate. And as the Superior Court noted, it also cuts off legal review. In a democracy, this is not desirable. »
Even within the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), it is no longer appropriate to view these two laws as strictly provincial issues that fall solely within the province of the National Assembly of Quebec. In addition to leadership candidate Patrick Brown, who, as mayor of the very multicultural city of Brampton, Ontario, threw himself heart and soul into the legal battle against the law on secularism, former Quebec premier Jean Charest also pledged to support the federal government’s participation in the legal case before the Supreme Court. For his part, Pierre Poilievre says he has no intention of “reversing” the Liberal government’s decision to participate.
If MM. Charest and Poilievre seem to seek to downplay the importance of such an intervention, because, unlike Mr. Brown, they are currently in a merciless struggle to win the support of Quebec members of the CPC in view of the ballot. next September 10.
François Legault responded by saying that by intervening in the legal challenge, Ottawa would go against the will of a majority of Quebecers. The weakness of such an argument should be obvious, even to those who support these two Quebec laws. He will certainly not go very far relying on this sole pretext before the Supreme Court, whose mandate to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of minorities is clear. Many observers in English Canada believe that Mr. Legault, a former sovereigntist, wishes to rekindle the separatist flame by suffering setbacks on these laws before the highest court in the country. Only he knows. But Canada seems to be headed for new constitutional clashes, the outcome of which remains highly unpredictable.