The only reasonably understandable sentence uttered by Leslyn Lewis during the debate in French between the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party concerned Pierre Poilievre’s craze for cryptocurrency: “He is in the potatoes. »
In reality, throughout the evening, we had the impression of being in a huge field of potatoes, so much nonsense was flying from all sides, echoing the new wave of Quebec bashing which is sweeping across English Canada.
Despite the decryption effort required by the inability of four of the six candidates to speak at least French, it was easy to understand that the indictment of Quebec was a consensus.
Who wants to drown his dog accuses him of rabies, says the proverb. Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown, who had already launched a major fundraising campaign to challenge the law on secularism in court, took advantage of the debate to in turn demonize the Act respecting the official and common language of Quebec, French. .
The spokespersons of the English-Quebec community have succeeded in legitimizing the absurd idea that an English-speaking patient will no longer be able to speak to his doctor in his own language, which English Canada was eager to believe. If that were the case, Mr. Brown would be right to be indignant, but nothing like that is planned.
Until now, the Conservative Party’s policy was to respect the decisions that Quebec deemed necessary to make to preserve its identity, even if it did not approve of them.
During the last election campaign, Erin O’Toole promised that a conservative government would not intervene in a possible challenge to the law on secularism before the Supreme Court. All the candidates for his succession are now determined to do so.
On the occasion of the 10e anniversary of the 1995 referendum, Jean Charest, then Premier of Quebec, echoed the words spoken by Robert Bourassa on the evening of the failure of the Meech Lake accord, declaring that “asymmetrical” federalism henceforth allowed Quebec to be “free to choose”.
Now that he once again aspires to become Prime Minister of Canada, this freedom of choice seems incompatible with Canadian values. The Conservative MPs from Quebec, who had argued vigorously with their colleagues in favor of the party’s neutrality in challenging the law on secularism and who almost all support Mr. Charest, now look like a bunch of turkeys. stuffing lost in the potato field. Apparently, to hope to become leader of the Conservative Party, you have to drop Quebec. Anyway, all attempts at seduction since the departure of Brian Mulroney have failed.
The official confirmation of the intervention of the Trudeau government in the Supreme Court once again provoked the indignation of Prime Minister Legault. In addition to this “flagrant lack of respect for Quebecers”, the angle of attack favored by the federal Minister of Justice, David Lametti, who contests the preventive use of the notwithstanding clause, clearly aims to limit its use and contravenes the spirit of those who demanded its inclusion in the Charter of Rights in 1982. Not only had the Charter been imposed on Quebec without its consent, but we would now like to erode the only tool it has to partially escape to its provisions.
Taking advantage of the notwithstanding provision to avoid a Supreme Court judgment after the fact is politically much more delicate than using it preventively, as the Bourassa government was able to see in 1988 in the case of Bill 178, while the use of this provision to maintain French unilingualism in commercial signage had turned English Canada upside down and marked the beginning of the end for the Meech Lake Accord.
In the short term, Mr. Legault will be able to take advantage of this new assault by posing as a defender of the nation during the next election campaign. It’s what follows that may be more complicated.
In 2018, he demanded a “clear mandate” to support the demands he made of the Trudeau government. Instead, he received a clear “no.” He now wants a mandate to prevent Quebec from being forced into the Canadian mould. Since he no longer has an ally in Ottawa, other than the Bloc Québécois, which can only bark, what does he intend to do?
Of course, one cannot completely rule out the possibility that the Supreme Court departs from its habit of “always leaning on the same side”. It would still be more prudent to think of a plan B. Even the PLQ had imagined one in the Allaire report.