All of Quebec’s political parties as well as the Bloc Québécois have come out against Ms. Elghawaby’s appointment, demanding that the Prime Minister withdraw her nomination. The main complaint about Ms. Elghawaby’s appointment stems from an opinion piece she co-authored in 2019 for the Ottawa Citizen in which she pointed to a poll that showed that a large majority of Quebecers who claimed to support Bill 21 also held negative views about Islam. “Unfortunately,” she wrote in the piece, “the majority of Quebecers appear to be swayed not by the rule of law, but by anti-Muslim sentiment.”

The province’s political leadership complained that Ms. Elghawaby was making broad generalizations about the province, unfairly painting all Quebecers with the same broad strokes. Critics were quick to point out that Quebecers are not Islamophobic – or at least not any more Islamophobic than any other Canadians. Critics also objected to Ms. Elghawaby’s assertion that Bill 21 was in any way the product of Islamophobic sentiments, suggesting instead that it reflected the will of a majority of Quebecers who have worked hard since the Quiet Revolution to build a modern and secular society. 

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that these points also paint the province with the same broad strokes as Ms. Elghawaby’s critics claim she had done with her opinion piece, the point about the Quiet Revolution is dubious. 

The popular understanding of the Quiet Revolution is that the 1960s represented the moment when Quebecers turned away from Catholicism and began the process of building a modern and secular society. It is true that this was a moment when the province threw off the shackles of the Church. But this was not done to achieve secularism so much as it was an attempt on the part of the political, professional, and business classes in the province to reduce the influence of the Church over the state in order to solidify their own positions of power within the state and within society.  

Over the last half century, historians have shown that the reforms of the Quiet Revolution were more about challenging the power of the Catholic Church than they were about challenging Catholicism itself. If one were to follow this reading of history, Bill 21 should be regarded less as an attempt to defend the supposedly hard-won gains associated with secularism that have been achieved since the Quiet Revolution and more as part of an ongoing effort to enhance the powers of the state – and, with it, to preserve the privileges of the largely white and male leadership classes in the province. 

Along with Bill 96, which amended Bill 101 in ways that restrict the freedom of Quebecers who wish to obtain services in English, Bill 21 is intended to limit the freedoms enjoyed by members of minority groups who threaten to undermine the authority of the province’s  leadership class. This leadership class has come to rely on its ability to defend the French language as well as the secularism of the society for its continued hold on power. The preemptive use of the Notwithstanding Clause to pass both laws means that any debate about minority rights in the province is effectively silenced. 

It is always troubling to watch a majority in any society employ the instruments of state power to limit the rights and freedoms of minority groups. Even so, the passage of laws such as Bill 21 and Bill 96 should be regarded as evidence that the French-speaking, white, male, and “secular” political, professional, and business classes are not at all confident in their ability to maintain their hold on power. By attempting to limit the rights of religious minorities as well as the rights of those who wish to express themselves in English, the overwhelmingly French-speaking, white, and male power structure is attempting – just as it has since the Quiet Revolution – to shore up its position atop a secular and French-speaking society.

It is thus hardly surprising that the nomination of Amira Elghawaby to be Canada’s representative in the fight against Islamophobia should have aroused such anger from Quebec’s leadership classes. Her past comments about Bill 21 notwithstanding, her very existence in a position of political influence – a position that might influence public opinion – represents an unacceptable threat to the power and privileges that Quebec’s male political leadership has accumulated for itself since the Quiet Revolution. 

The post The Rage Against Amira Elghawaby appeared first on The McGill Daily.

One way that the government hoped to achieve this was by permitting such businesses operating in the province of Quebec to follow either the Official Languages Act or the province’s Charter of the French Language – known as Bill 101 –which entrenched French as the official language of Quebec and restricted the use of English in the province. In May 2022, Bill 96 was passed in Quebec, amending parts of Bill 101 and causing further problems with the bill. To pass Bill 96, the government of Premier François Legault, used the Notwithstanding Clause – a constitutional mechanism that allows a government to override certain parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – to preemptively shield the law from any potential court challenges. By making explicit reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, Bill C-13 now effectively endorses the preemptive use of the Notwithstanding Clause in federal law, something that the federal government has never done before.

Bill C-13 has received second reading and is now in front of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which is reviewing the bill and considering proposals for amendments. A number of Liberal Members of Parliament representing ridings on the island of Montreal—including Anthony Housefather, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, and Marc Garneau—have raised concerns about this apparent endorsement of the Notwithstanding Clause in a federal law. They have also raised concerns about the possibility that the inclusion of a reference to the Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act could limit access to English services in federally regulated businesses in Quebec. The Charter of the French Language explicitly guarantees service in French – but does not guarantee service in English. The old Official Languages Act, on the other hand, guarantees access to services in both English and French. 

In Committee, the Bloc Québécois has introduced a number of amendments intended to further entrench the Charter of the French Language in any updated version of the Official Languages Act. The Conservative Party has joined the Bloc Québécois in its attempt to weaken the rights of English-speaking Quebecers, most recently when Joël Godin, Member of Parliament for a riding in the Quebec City region, introduced an amendment that would have the federal government recognize Quebec’s distinctive character when formulating language policy. Another member of the Committee – Liberal Francis Drouin, who represents an Eastern Ontario riding – dismissed the concerns of English-speaking Quebecers when he tweeted “the island of Montreal does not have a monopoly on Canada’s linguistic policy.” Niki Ashton, meanwhile, a NDP member on the Committee who represents a northern Manitoba riding, finds it “extremely concerning” that Liberal members are expressing reservations about a bill that originated from their own party. Why it is “extremely concerning” that a Liberal member might wish to fix or improve a bill put forward by their own party is not entirely clear. Furthermore, Arielle Kayabaga, a Liberal committee member who represents a riding in London, Ontario, seems to agree with the Bloc Québécois, Conservatives, and NDP when she says it is imperative that the House of Commons pass the bill “as soon as possible.”

The problem with Bill C-13 is that it entrenches the Charter of the French Language – and by extension the use of the Notwithstanding Clause – into federal law. It also introduces into the Official Languages Act the principle of asymmetry when it comes to language rights. Under the original Official Languages Act, the English and French languages were accorded equal status across the country. Should Bill C-13 pass, however, the Official Languages Act would be amended in such a way as to define Quebec as a French-speaking region of the country with a special responsibility to promote the use of the French language according to the terms of the province’s own Charter of the French Language. In the rush to advance the rights of French-speaking Canadians to access services from federally regulated businesses, the members of the Subcommittee on Official Languages, and the overwhelming majority of the rest of the House of Commons, appear intent on forsaking the rights of English-speaking Quebecers to access services in their language in their province. 

In addition, Bill C-13 seems to put forward the notion that Quebec should be treated in federal law as a distinct society when it comes to matters of language. Especially given that the Meech Lake Accord was defeated in large part over this issue three decades ago,this is a significant development that warrants further reflection and that should not be rushed through Parliament “as soon as possible.”

This  debate is also extremely troubling for another reason. If we, as a society, decide that it is acceptable to limit the rights of English-speaking Quebecers today, we are also opening the door to one day limiting the rights of French-speaking Canadians elsewhere in the country. The principle of asymmetry leads us on this path of revoking the rights of a minority group when that minority group no longer has the means to defend itself. 

It is thus time for members of the Subcommittee on Official Languages, Members of Parliament from all parties, and all Canadians, to stand up for the rights of linguistic minorities across the country. It is time for us all to slow this process down and to think about how minority groups across this country will be adversely affected by the proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act.

The post The Erosion of Official Bilingualism appeared first on The McGill Daily.