Quebec premier changing Constitution unilaterally starts ‘slippery slope,’ say some Liberal MPs

Quebec Liberal MPs representing anglophone ridings are staying mum on the Quebec government’s controversial attempt to unilaterally change the Constitution, but some Liberal MPs from other regions of the country are warning that the move sets Canada down a “slippery slope” with unintended consequences that will set a precedent for other provinces to do the same. “This is a major issue. So does this mean, if you're English, you're a second-class citizen in the province of Quebec?” said eight-term Liberal MP Wayne Easter (Malpeque, P.E.I.) and chair of the powerful House Finance Committee, in an interview with The Hill Times last week. “We're a bilingual country, bilingualism is important and one of the reasons we have bilingualism is to support the French culture and the French language. And we're seeing the province of Quebec itself pull back, so that in my view is a problem,” Mr. Easter said. Last month, Quebec Premier François Legault proposed a change to the province’s language laws that would include changing part of the Canadian Constitution, unilaterally affirming French as the only official language of the province. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade Last month, Quebec Premier François Legault proposed a change to the province’s language laws that would include changing part of the Canadian Constitution, unilaterally affirming French as the only official language of the province. In response to questions from reporters, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) said that Quebec is within its constitutional rights to make this change. Constitutional law experts are divided on the question of whether a province can do that on its own. “Our initial analysis, in terms of the Justice Department, has highlighted that it is perfectly legitimate for a province to modify the section of the Constitution that applies specifically to them,” Mr. Trudeau told reporters last month. Conservative Party Leader Erin O’Toole (Durham, Ont.) and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, B.C.) have also echoed the same views about the controversial move by the premier. “A Conservative government will always respect the jurisdiction of the provinces, including the sections of the Constitution reserved for specific provinces, which the Constitution allows them to modify unilaterally,” Mr. O’Toole said in a statement, last month. Veteran Liberal MP Wayne Easter says that allowing Quebec Premier Francois Legault to unilaterally change the constitution will set a precedent for other provinces to do the same. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade The responses of the three federal party leaders suggest they are hesitant to say anything that will be seen as offensive to Quebecers with an election likely on the way. The Trudeau Liberals are running a minority government, and all parties are hoping to make electoral gains in Quebec in the next election. Quebec has 78 federal electoral seats, the second highest total in the country after Ontario, which has 121 seats. The combined seat count of these two provinces makes up more than half of the 338 House of Commons seats. Political insiders say that the road to Liberal majority in the next election goes through Quebec. In the last federal election, the Trudeau Liberals won 35 seats in Quebec, the Bloc Québécois 32, the Conservatives 10, and the NDP one seat. In contrast, the Liberals won 40 seats in Quebec in 2015, the NDP 16, the Conservatives 12, and the Bloc 10. The Liberals have appointed Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages and Quebec MP Melanie Joly (Ahuntsic-Cartierville, Que.) and former minister and Ontario MP Navdeep Bains as co-chairs. In 2019, the Liberals won 157 seats, the Conservatives 121, the Bloc Québécois 32, the NDP 24 seats, the Green Party two seats, and one Independent MP was elected. To win a majority, the Liberals would need 13 more seats on top of all 157 they won in 2019 to meet the required 170 seat threshold. Meanwhile, former senior political players who have played important roles in the past constitutional debates are warning that by allowing Quebec to change the Constitution without a fight, Mr. Trudeau is opening up a "Pandora’s box" that will make the relationship between Ottawa and provinces “more and more divisive.” “If Quebec can reopen constitutional talks, how will the prime minister react when other provinces do the same?” wrote Eddie Goldenberg, former top adviser to former prime minister Jean Chrétien, in an op-ed in The Globe and Mail on May 31. “Indeed, it took Premier Jason Kenney less than a week to welcome Quebec’s move and state that he might use the precedent to introduce 'unilateral' constitutional amendments to strengthen Alberta’s autonomy. He had already threatened to propose a constitutional amendment to change the equalization formula. What if New Brunswick makes the same move on its official bilingualism, or Manitoba seeks a constitutional amendment to abolish bilingual legislation?” A few days after the Quebec premier proposed the amendment, the Western Canada-based upstart Maverick Party demanded that Mr. Kenney and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe declare English as the only official language of the two western Canadian provinces. Maverick Party Leader Jay Hill accused Mr. Trudeau of hypocrisy for giving special treatment to Quebec. “Enough. It is way passed time to send an unmistakable message to the federal government in Ottawa, and all the so-called federal opposition party leaders who have been so quick to acquiesce to Quebec’s constitutional demands. Alberta deserves the same treatment,” wrote Mr. Hill in his open letter to Mr. Kenney, sent out on May 25. “I submit that as premier of Alberta you should immediately draft, introduce and pass legislation to unilaterally declare English as the only official language of Alberta. Just as with Quebec’s Bill 96, the purpose of your bill should be to affirm that the only official language of Alberta is English. It should also affirm English is the common language of the Alberta nation. Finally, your bill should insist the Constitution of Canada be amended to recognize Alberta as a nation.” The Hill Times reached out to a number of Quebec Liberal MPs representing majority anglophone ridings for this story but they either did not respond or declined to comment. Mr. Easter said that the national Liberal caucus has had discussions on this subject, and caucus members have different opinions on how to respond to Quebec’s proposed changes to language laws. He declined to get into specifics, citing caucus confidentiality. Mr. Easter said that one of the reasons why this subject is not top of mind for Canadians right now is that the entire country, including the federal government, are busy dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic that has caused the death of more than 25,000 Canadians, and more than 1.3-million confirmed cases of the virus. Mr. Easter said that if the Quebec is allowed to make this change, it will have unintended consequences, as Mr. Kenney already has expressed his interest in making English the only language of that province. “It moves us away from the principle of bilingualism that was envisioned when bilingualism came in, that we have two official languages in the country,” said Mr. Easter. Liberal MP John McKay says he's not sure if a province can unilaterally change the constitution and a court of law should decide whether a province has the power to do it. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade Mr. Easter declined to say if the federal government has any role to play in stopping Mr. Legault from opening up the Constitution. “That's still up for debate,” he said. When asked whether the lack of federal action would create a perception that Mr. Trudeau was shying away to win favour in the next election, he said: “I guess every party would find itself in that boat, would they not?” Eight-term Liberal MP John McKay (Scarborough-Guildwood, Ont.) said that it’s news to him that a province could unilaterally change the Constitution. He described the move as “exclusionary,” and said it will further alienate the Quebecers who are not fluent in French. “These barriers will not go well for anybody who is not of a particular religious persuasion, or ,” said Mr. McKay, chair of the House Public Safety and National Security Committee. He said that it’s the role of the government to ensure that all Canadians are treated equally, and a court of law should decide whether a province has the authority to unilaterally change the Constitution. “The role of the federal government is to uphold the Constitution,” said Mr. McKay. “I suppose, obvious way is to make a challenge in court.” In response to a question from The Hill Times about whether the prime minister would take Quebec to court for making a change in constitution, PMO press secretary Alex Wellstead sent back an answer that Mr. Trudeau gave to the media on May 25. “My responsibility as prime minister is to defend the Constitution and to ensure that all Canadians have their rights upheld,” Mr. Trudeau said. “That means protecting both French and English throughout the country, and that means ensuring protection for official language minorities across the country. That is something that I have never wavered from and will never waver from. But at the same time, we've all been through the constitutional battles of the past number of decades that have left many scars on many people. I choose always to look forward; look to how we can continue to protect French across the country and in Quebec, while at the same time ensuring protection for linguistic minorities, including the anglophone minority in Quebec.” Pollster Nik Nanos of Nanos Research told The Hill Times that this will only be a top tier issue in the next election if the three federal parties have any difference on their position on this issue. He said that this issue is especially tricky for the Conservatives: if they support Quebec in this constitutional change, it might not go over well with their voter base in Western Canada. “The Conservatives are counting on being a competitive option in the province of Quebec,” said Mr. Nanos. “And this particular policy, although it might be popular in the province of Quebec, is likely not as popular in the Conservative heartland, especially in Western Canada. So this will end up being problematic for Erin O’Toole to fashion a policy response that makes them viable Quebec but still keeps his base happy.” The Hill Times

Quebec premier changing Constitution unilaterally starts ‘slippery slope,’ say some Liberal MPs

Liberal MP John McKay says that a court of law should decide whether a province can unilaterally change the Constitution.

Time for a shift: Canada must treat Alzheimer’s like other progressive diseases

AG says green tech fund documents ‘not my information to hand over’ as House remains at a standstill

Amid growing questions over his leadership, Trudeau looks ahead as PMO, PCO vet some MPs for cabinet and PS positions

Conservative filibuster costing millions of dollars, say NDP and Green MPs

‘Extreme apprehension’: Canada holds its breath as U.S. election enters final stage

‘Each of our voices matter’: disaster survivors call for greater climate action in Ottawa advocacy push

Only in Quebec would ‘English Week’ be controversial

StatsCan isn’t doing Quebec’s anglophones any favours

Canada as we know it will soon cease to exist

Quebec’s anglophones living a winter of discontent

Growing discontent between feds and provinces

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Quebec premier changing Constitution unilaterally starts ‘slippery slope,’ say some Liberal MPs

Liberal MP John McKay says that a court of law should decide whether a province can unilaterally change the Constitution.

Become a Political Insider