A pox on all their houses: the major parties pander shamelessly on language

KAMOURASKA, QUE.—One of my mother’s cousins was married to a prominent Franco-Ontarian, Marcel Joyal, who was a lawyer in Ottawa and later became a Federal Court judge. They summered here, and I was lucky enough to enjoy his company from time to time. Joyal was a passionate Canadian, and late into the Kamouraska summer nights, we would discuss politics. He was insistent Franco-Ontarians and Anglo-Quebecers were the “true” Canadians, because we had much in common: we had to learn the other language to advance in society; we relied on the federal government and the courts to protect our rights; and we both understood what it was like to be a minority. From the time of Confederation, the minority experience was a seminal feature of Canada. The Fathers of Confederation, which included such prominent Quebecers as Sir Georges-Étienne Cartier, Thomas D’Arcy McGee, and Sir Alexander Galt, understood language rights were to be protected as part of the Confederation bargain. Under Section 133 of the BNA Act, the legislature in Quebec and Parliament would permit debate in both languages, and the courts would allow pleading in Quebec in French and English. Gradually, government services were provided in both languages. This evolved into the Official Languages Act in 1968. In 1977, when Quebec attempted to break the bargain by declaring French the only language of the legislature, the courts, and quasi-judicial bodies in Bill 101, it was thrown out by the Supreme Court. Three Quebec lawyers—Peter Blaikie, Roland Durand and Yoine Goldstein—challenged the bill, arguing it violated Section 133 of the Constitution. In an argument reminiscent of the François Legault government’s language legislation, Bill 96, Quebec contended provincial governments had the right to amend their “Constitutions.” Quebec said its legislature and courts fell within the “Constitution of the Province,” so it had the power to unilaterally amend Section 133. Quebec lost, and the constitutional guarantees of minority language rights were maintained in the repatriated Constitution and the Charter of Rights in 1982. Fast forward to this election and you would doubt Justin Trudeau, Erin O’Toole, and Jagmeet Singh had ever heard of the Constitution, Blaikie, or McGee. In their turn, each has endorsed Bill 96, which is an assault on human rights and linguistic rights of Quebecers. It intends to change Quebec’s “Constitution” to declare French the only language of the courts and the National Assembly. O’Toole, astonishingly enough, called the English version of his Quebec platform the “Contrat avec les Québécois et les Québécoises,” not “The Contract with Quebecers.” O’Toole likes to point out, in a heavily accented French, that he was born in Quebec, although his family scurried to Ontario soon after the Parti Québécois victory in November of 1976. O’Toole’s platform reads like René Lévesque’s plans for “Sovereignty-Association.” Here are three key planks: “Working with Quebec to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses,” “Respecting the right of Quebec to pass its own laws to protect its language and culture,” and “Negotiating the establishment of a single tax return for Quebec.” This is not simply throwing the anglophone community under the bus, as the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc want to do: it is throwing Canada, its history, and laws under the bus. It also opens the door over time to allow other provinces to reduce the rights of francophone minorities in other provinces. Let’s face it: all of the main party leaders would do and say anything to win votes in Quebec. I want to say to them, “A pox on all your houses.” The only party refusing to pander to Quebec is the Green Party, whose leader, Annamie Paul, has a clear-eyed understanding of the threat Bill 96 poses. Sadly, she is encumbered by her own party’s internal turmoil. But she could win seats if angry anglos seek an alternative. In the past, powerful Anglo-Quebecers would intervene to refuse contributions to the parties or steer party leaders to a moderate position. But the million Anglo-Quebecers are now mostly elderly, rural poor, BIPOC, and recent immigrants, and they have no clout in Ottawa or Quebec City. And so, we watch this shameful spectacle of unprincipled politicians selling off our values and history to curry favour with Quebec nationalists. Shame. Andrew Caddell is retired from Global Affairs Canada, where he was a senior policy adviser. He previously worked as an adviser to Liberal governments. He is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and a principal of QIT Canada. He can be reached at pipson52@hotmail.com. The Hill Times