Law Quebec Passed Sweeping Legislation to Enforce the use of French.

Legault fires back at Ottawa after comments on Bill 96 and Bill 21
Legault describes Ottawa's plan to intervene in Bill 21 court challenge as disrespectful
By Antoni Nerestant · CBC · May 25, 2022


Canada's justice minister criticized Quebec's newly adopted language law on Wednesday, while also providing details on how and when the federal government could get involved in the legal challenge of the province's controversial religious symbols law.

His statements appear to have angered Quebec's premier.

"It makes no sense," said François Legault, who added that the majority of Quebecers are in favour of both laws.

David Lametti weighed in on Quebec's new language law, Bill 96, which was adopted into law on Tuesday, and he said he would not rule out Ottawa taking part in a legal challenge against it.

"We will keep all options on the table," he said. "We won't eliminate the possibility of joining court challenges where we feel it is necessary to protect the constitutional rights of Canadians."

The sweeping new language law is large in scope.

It limits the use of English in the courts and public services and imposes tougher language requirements on small businesses and municipalities. It also caps the number of students who can attend English-language CEGEPs, which are junior colleges, and increases the number of French courses students at that level must take.

Lametti said he was concerned about the law's potential effects on immigrants, access to justice and health care in both French and English as well as Indigenous rights.

He also criticized Quebec's pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause which essentially protects Bill 96 from legal challenges based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quebec also used the notwithstanding clause for its controversial religious symbols law — also known as Bill 21.

"I recall those debates when the Constitution came into force and the notwithstanding clause was meant to be the last word," Lametti said when meeting reporters on Wednesday morning.

"It wasn't meant to be the first word."

Lametti, who is also the federal MP for the Montreal riding of LaSalle–Émard–Verdun fielded a series of questions from reporters about the federal government's possible involvement in a legal challenge against both Bill 96 and Bill 21.

In what appears to be Ottawa's most definitive statement yet about getting involved in the court battle against the religious symbols law, Lametti said the federal government would be ready to present its opinions to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"We've always said since the beginning that we have some concerns with this bill, and that we were going to leave some space for Quebecers to express themselves before the courts," Lametti said.

"Once the [Quebec] Court of Appeal renders a decision, we will go to the Supreme Court to give our opinions on this because [at that point], it would be, by definition, a national issue."

In the past, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he preferred to stay out of the court challenge against Bill 21, while remaining open to stepping in at some point in the process. But during a public appearance in Saskatchewan on Wednesday afternoon, Trudeau echoed Lametti's comments.

"If Bill 21, as it seems almost inevitable, ends up before the Supreme Court, the government of Canada will be part of that discussion," Trudeau said.

"We will be there to defend the fundamental rights of all Canadians [whose rights] have been suspended by this law. This is a matter that matters to all Canadians."

So far, only Quebec's Superior Court has issued a ruling on Bill 21.

'Flagrant lack of respect' towards Quebecers, Legault says
Quebec Premier François Legault blasted Lametti for committing to go to the Supreme Court before the Quebec Court of Appeal had even issued its own ruling. He also had harsh words for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

"It's a flagrant lack of respect from Justin Trudeau toward Quebecers," Legault said.

Legault also described a potential legal challenge against the new language law as more evidence of a lack of respect for Quebec.

The passing of Bill 96 on Tuesday came after weeks of protests over concerns it would infringe on the rights of anglophones, allophones and Indigenous communities.

The Legault government has insisted the new law would do no such thing, but many legal experts disagree.

The federal justice minister expressed concerns regarding a clause in the language law that gives sweeping powers to Quebec's language office to investigate businesses suspected of not operating in the province's official language.

"I'm a Quebecer. As a citizen of Quebec, I'm concerned about access to health care. I'm concerned the ability to conduct search and seizure and whether that violates charter rights," Lametti said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-96-federal-response-justice-minister-legault-1.6465090
 
Quebec's use of notwithstanding clause in French language law opens constitutional debate
The Canadian Press · May 29, 2022

single-sport-gambling-20201126.jpg

Justice Minister David Lametti said the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms wasn't intended to be used as the "first word" in a debate between the courts and legislatures.

When federal Justice Minister David Lametti reacted last week to the adoption of Quebec's language law reform, he took aim at the provincial government's proactive use of the notwithstanding clause to shield the law from constitutional challenges.

Lametti and other critics of Bill 96 say the government's use of that clause — Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — shuts down debate and prevents a proper judicial review of the legislation.

The proactive use of Section 33, which permits a government to override certain provisions of the Constitution, is an "unintended negative consequence in our political system," he said.

The Quebec government, meanwhile, says its use of the clause is legitimate and necessary to protect laws that are supported by the majority of Quebecers. The government calls Section 33 "the parliamentary sovereignty provision."

Bill 96, among other things, limits the use of English — one of Canada's two official languages — in the public service and permits inspectors to conduct searches and seizures in businesses without warrants.

The proactive use of Section 33 means the courts cannot declare Bill 96 unconstitutional because of its potential violations of certain fundamental rights included in the Charter.

The two other recent cases where the notwithstanding clause was invoked outside of Quebec — by the Ontario government in 2021 and by Saskatchewan in 2017 — it was used to override court decisions.

Quebec is the only province to invoke the clause before judicial review.

The notwithstanding clause, Lametti told reporters, "was meant to be the last word in what is, in effect, a dialogue between the courts and legislatures. It wasn't meant to be the first word."

Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo who studies the Supreme Court's role in shaping public policy, said there's nothing in the Charter that outlines when Section 33 can be used.

He said, however, that he doesn't think its pre-emptive use was envisioned when the Charter was drafted in 1982.

"Quebec is right to say, legally, we can use it pre-emptively and they're at least partially right to say the notwithstanding clause is a parliamentary sovereignty provision, but it's also an unprincipled use of the notwithstanding clause," Macfarlane said in an interview Friday.

"It's a political manoeuvre to avoid having that negative judicial ruling that would be inevitable if they hadn't used the notwithstanding clause."

Constitutional lawyer Julius Grey argued before the Superior Court against Quebec's secularism law — known as Bill 21 — which bans certain government employees from wearing religious symbols at work.

That case is before the Court of Appeal. He said in an recent interview that the question as to how Section 33 can be used will be decided when the case reaches the Supreme Court.

Grey said he hopes the high court will rule that provinces can't use the clause as they please.

"Parliamentary sovereignty is precisely what the Charter wants to get away from," Grey said. "We all understand that parliamentary sovereignty has certain dangers — the rule of the majority can turn into the tyranny of the majority."

Quebec a 'champion' of using clause

Benoît Pelletier, a cabinet minister in the Quebec Liberal government of Jean Charest, said he supports the Quebec government's use of the notwithstanding clause, a tool he said is "at the heart" of the separation of powers in Canada's legal system.

Section 33, he said, was included in the Charter to preserve parliamentary sovereignty but also to maintain the balance of power between the judiciary and the government.

For Pelletier, the proactive use of the provision isn't a problem because the courts can still review the legislation — a Superior Court ruling on Bill 21 that upheld most of the law was more than 200 pages, he said.

In that ruling, Superior Court Justice Marc-Andre Blanchard found that Bill 21 violates fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of religion, but he couldn't strike those elements of the bill down because the law was shielded by Section 33.

Pelletier said he thinks the Quebec government is making "moderate" use of Section 33. "As a province, or as a nation, or as a political unit, it's normal that Quebec makes collective choices that are different from those of the other provinces."

Patrick Taillon, a constitutional law professor at Université Laval, said Quebec has been something of a "champion" of using Section 33. The province has used it more than others, he said in an interview Friday, "because it allows our elected officials to exercise a certain form of autonomy."

The Supreme Court, he added, has already upheld the preventive use of the notwithstanding clause, in a 1988 decision involving Quebec's French-language signage legislation. That decision made clear that the court's role was not to decide whether it was right or wrong to use Section 33 but only whether it conformed to the Constitution.

Macfarlane said it's not just Quebec's use of Section 33 that concerns him. The Ontario government's 2021 use of the notwithstanding clause to protect a campaign finance law was also problematic, he said.

"I don't think other provinces are immune to these populist impulses," he said.

"But there obviously is something distinct about Quebec's record with the notwithstanding clause relative to all the other provinces."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...anding-clause-constitutional-debate-1.6470091
 
Last edited:
Indigenous leaders say Quebec's French language law damages reconciliation efforts
Jacob Serebrin, The Canadian Press | May 25, 2022

img-3479-1024x768.jpg

Indigenous communities in Quebec say the language law passed Tuesday will harm the education prospects of their youth and undermine reconciliation in the province.

In Kahnawake, south of Montreal, members of the community are meeting daily to discuss ways of contesting the law, said Mike Delisle, a member of the Mohawk Council of Chiefs. Delisle said the Coalition Avenir Québec government did not adequately consult with Indigenous communities about the reform.

"The word 'reconciliation' is out of the window at this point," he said in an interview Wednesday. "Those are just words on paper, it doesn't mean anything to us, because their words are not true."

Delisle said that for historic reasons, many people in his community learn English rather than French. He said young people are worried about a requirement that students at English-language junior colleges take three additional French-language classes. On Saturday, a group of Kahnawake students led a protest march, stopping traffic on a major bridge into Montreal.

The impact in colleges is also a concern for Sarah Aloupa, the president of Kativik Ilisarniliriniq, the school board in Quebec's northern Nunavik region.

"Many of our students go to school in English. There is no French immersion in our schools, so you study either fully in English or in French after Grade 3," she said in an interview Tuesday.

She said the additional French classes will be another burden for students who already have to travel long distances to pursue post-secondary education outside the region. She said the law may push young people to study outside the province.

The law shows a lack of understanding of the unique language and culture in the North, she said.

"As Inuit people, we're not even 20,000 people, and we are considered to be endangering the French language," she said. "I think we will have no choice but to go to court to be heard."

Delisle said people in Kahnawake are also worried about the effects of the bill on community-run health and social services agencies, as well as the impact it will have on the community's police service and access to justice.

The language law reform, known as Bill 96, forbids provincial government agencies, municipalities and municipal bodies from making systematic use of languages other than French.

It also requires court decisions to be immediately translated into French, forbids companies from pleading in court in other languages and gives the province's justice and language ministers the ability to decide which judicial postings require English, a decision that was previously made by the chief justice.

The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador described the bill as a "major step backwards" that puts reconciliation "on hold."

"To deny the rights of others to assert one's own, to brutally assert one's supremacy over other nations that share the same territory is unworthy of a government that respects itself," Grand Chief Ghislain Picard said in a news release after the bill passed.

Federal Justice Minister David Lametti said Wednesday he's concerned about the law's impact on the rights of Indigenous people but said it is too soon to talk about federal involvement in a possible court challenge.

"We will keep all options on the table," Lametti told reporters in Montreal. "There are ways to implement the bill that would safeguard Quebecers' constitutional rights."

Any federal participation in a court challenge would be related to matters of federal jurisdiction, Lametti added, and would only come if a challenge starts in Quebec.

The law invokes the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Constitution to shield it from charter challenges. It also grants language inspectors the power to conduct searches and seizures of businesses without a warrant. Lametti said he has concerns that the use of the notwithstanding clause has cut short debate on the law.

"As a citizen of Quebec, I'm concerned about access to health care," he said. "I am concerned about ... the ability to conduct search and seizures and whether that violates charter rights. I'm concerned about the potential impact on immigration."

https://www.cp24.com/news/indigenou...-law-damages-reconciliation-efforts-1.5918447
 
Send in the military to show what language quebec should speak
 
Good. Québec is French speaking and all the haters can move to post national rest of canada. Good riddance.

Rofl.

The language nazis can go fuck themselves.

"OHNOEZ!!! A menu has the word pasta !!! That will surely lead to the death of french (small f on purpose) language and culture."

img.webp
 
Good. Québec is French speaking and all the haters can move to post national rest of canada. Good riddance.
I'm glad they decided in their interests. However Canada sends the most money to Quebec via equalization payments. It's hard to believe the rest of Canada puts up with Quebec's bullshit given that they also basically pay for them to stay afloat.
 
The bill is unconstitutional and they know it. They wrote it in a way where it is obviously going to get opposed politically by the Liberals while the Conservatives and NDP take a half-assed approach to it, and then it's going to get rejected by the supreme court and so the current government in Quebec who is heading into an election can score political points with the French and separatist movement while claiming that the evil Anglos and federalists want to take away our rights to protect our language!
 
Canada should just let them go at this point.
 
Generally speaking if there's a large enough population speaking any language they should be able to access govt forms, and public services in a way that can accomodate that.

As a tourist I've never had a problem with speaking English in Montreal. As long as you know the red octagon that says Arret means stop you're pretty much all set.
 
I really hope the medical inclusion in B96 of doctors not being allowed to serve people in other than French eliminates them from receiving federal wealth transfers under the Canada Health Act. Frenchies want to keep their culture, fine -- but we should be able to cut their welfare asses off from receiving transfers
 
My only question is why haven't you guy split and let them go their own way?
 
I used to speak fluent french in grammar school in Louisiana since it was 90% Cajun even wrote it in cursive (yall heard of that?)...but forgot most. Good way to get pussy tho. Learn it.

All my friends had names ended in X Arceneaux, Boudreaux etc. so it was really easy to find my non X grades on bulletin board. They dont do that anymore either.... name and shaming etc
 
Last edited:
Show me a govt that shrinks without guns involved.

Territories gain independence all the time.

It sounds like they believe they are independen in all but the most legal sense.
 
Back
Top