Trudeau's comments on Constitution spark backlash among Quebec anglos
"This is a deeply troubling trend," QCGN president Marlene Jennings tells federal Justice Minister David Lametti.
Article content
QUEBEC — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s comments that Quebec can unilaterally rewrite sections of the Constitution have upset representatives of the English-speaking community.
But the federal Justice Minister, David Lametti, insisted later that the federal government has not forgotten it has a role guarding the rights of Canadian minorities, including anglophones in Quebec.
Lametti was responding to concerns expressed Tuesday by Marlene Jennings, president of the Quebec Community Groups Network. On Tuesday Jennings abruptly cancelled her participation in a meeting between her staff and Lametti’s staff.
The meeting was to discuss the community’s concerns about the Coalition Avenir Québec government’s new language legislation, Bill 96, tabled last week.
But Trudeau’s remarks Tuesday — in which he agreed Quebec can rewrite certain sections of the Constitution to insert new provisions establishing the province as a nation and affirm that the only official language of Quebec is French — “surprised and disappointed” Jennings, a QCGN spokesperson said.
No new date has been set for a follow-up meeting.
Jennings expressed her worry about what Bill 96 might lead to in a letter to Lametti released Wednesday by the QCGN. In the letter, Jennings raises “serious concerns” about Bill 96, its impact on the rights of minorities and what she suggests was Ottawa’s lukewarm response.
Jennings specifically mentions the bill’s “repeated and over-broad” use of the notwithstanding clause to override fundamental rights to shield the bill from the courts, and Quebec’s plan to unilaterally amend the Constitution Act of 1867.
“Indeed, this is a deeply troubling trend,” Jennings said, noting the clause is being used to shield the Charter of the French Language from legal challenges.
“Further, the Quebec government has provided no satisfactory explanation as to why the clause is being invoked in this bill.”
The QCGN as a not-for-profit organization linking English-language groups across Quebec.
Jennings calls on Lametti, who is from Quebec and studied law at McGill University, to send a reference now to the Supreme Court of Canada “regarding the constitutional issues raised in this bill.”
“The proposed amendment to the Constitution Act of 1867 imperils constitutionally entrenched minority language rights and the integrity of the Constitution’s architecture,” Jennings writes.
“This amendment could have potentially far-reaching consequences for constitutional interpretation. Assurances by Quebec that the amendment is merely declaratory and will not affect interpretation of rights are of little legal significance and not binding on a court,” Jennings said.
“We call on you to show leadership in a federal response.”
In his comments, Trudeau said his government shares Quebec’s views on both nationhood and the protection of the French Language, but added the province would still need to recognize parts of the Constitution that extend protections to “linguistic minorities like anglophones in Quebec.”
“I’m happy because he confirms that we were right when we said that we can unilaterally amend the Constitution to say two things — that, first, Quebec is a nation, and second, that the official language is French in Quebec,” Premier François Legault said in response to Trudeau at a news conference Tuesday.
But Quebec’s move has sparked a reaction with media and analysts outside Quebec wading in. Emmett Macfarlane, a University of Waterloo professor specializing in constitutional amendments, issued an extensive critique in which he argues Bill 96 goes well beyond the claims that it makes.
He added in a tweet that Trudeau was abdicating his duty as prime minister by agreeing Quebec can alter the Constitution by itself.
“He should stand up for (the Constitution) or resign,” he said.
Lametti, however, moved to calm the waters in an interview with the Montreal Gazette Wednesday. He said Ottawa also “shares the concerns about the preemptive use” of the notwithstanding clause.
But he noted Quebec’s change refers to Section 45 of the 1982 Constitution Act which, he says, does not affect Section 133, which enshrines French and English as rights.
The article says that, with some exceptions, “the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.”
“That (section) can’t be unilaterally modified by Quebec and nothing that can be done using Section 45 can diminish those Section 133 rights,” Lametti said.
With respect to Quebec seeking recognition as a nation, the House of Commons did that in 2006, he added.
“Even if that is done under Section 45, there’s nothing new there,” Lametti said.
He added there are other minority protections such as the Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“I do indeed understand the anxiety (in the anglophone community),” Lametti added. “We will make decisions as we go along but we will try and do it in a cooperative way being respectful of rights and respectful of the fact we need to help protect the French language.”
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.