{"id":269766,"date":"2021-09-22T13:35:13","date_gmt":"2021-09-22T17:35:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/issues\/why-quebecs-bill-96-is-good-for-national-unity\/"},"modified":"2025-10-07T23:41:35","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T03:41:35","slug":"why-quebecs-bill-96-is-good-for-national-unity","status":"publish","type":"issues","link":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2021\/09\/why-quebecs-bill-96-is-good-for-national-unity\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Quebec\u2019s Bill 96 is good for national unity"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a recent article in Policy Options<\/em>, \u201cQuebec\u2019s attempt to unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution won\u2019t fly,\u201d<\/a> Emmett Macfarlane, professor of political science at the University of Waterloo, argues that Quebec\u2019s Bill 96 is ultra vires, <\/em>that Quebec\u2019s National Assembly overstepped its bounds, and predicted it will be struck down by the courts. Bill 96 proposes to \u201cunilaterally\u201d insert two clauses into the provincial and Canadian constitutions affirming that (1) Quebecers form a nation and (2) French is the province\u2019s only official language. Macfarlane argues this represents a fundamental change to Canada\u2019s Constitution, and is therefore subject to the amending formula requiring the consent of other provinces.<\/p>\n

Professor Macfarlane may well be right. I am not a lawyer and shall thus not address the bill\u2019s constitutionality nor Quebec\u2019s use of the notwithstanding clause to avoid judicial review of its provisions. My arguments are political.<\/p>\n

On June 16, the House of Commons overwhelmingly passed a Bloc Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois motion<\/a> acknowledging Quebec\u2019s right to amend its provincial constitution and thus enshrine the two clauses in Canada\u2019s Constitution. Electoral politics played a role\u00b8 of course. There is little to be gained in Quebec, a key electoral battleground, in opposing Bill 96. However, the reasons why the Bloc\u2019s motion passed with relative ease has deeper roots. Canada\u2019s political landscape has changed: The word \u201cnation\u201d is no longer the bogeyman it once was, and the need to defend French is now largely recognized.<\/p>\n

Let me start with a short history lesson.<\/p>\n

From \u201cCanadiens\u201d to \u201cQu\u00e9b\u00e9cois\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is only fairly recently that francophone Quebecers have come to call themselves Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois<\/em>. Let me tell an anecdote. In the mid-1960s, as part of a student summer job, I did a census in villages in southern Quebec. One question concerned ethnic breakdown. When I asked what that breakdown was, the answer often was: x pour cent de Canadiens et x pour cent d\u2019Anglais<\/em> (x<\/em> per cent French Canadians and x<\/em> per cent English). The French who landed on the shores of the St. Lawrence River in the 17th<\/sup> century were the first to call themselves Canadiens<\/em> \u2013 a new national identity, distinct from the Anglo-Americans to the south. The add-on \u201cFrench\u201d <\/em>(French Canadian) came into use later as the new English-speaking population, who had the temerity to also call themselves Canadians, grew. But French Canadian<\/em> would never have the proud ring of Canadien<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The sense of being Canadien<\/em>, hyphenated or not, remained powerful. So why trade it in for a new \u201cnational\u201d label? I won\u2019t go into the litany of horror stories that every Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois child learns at school \u2013 how French Canadians were treated outside Quebec, the hanging of Louis Riel and the suppression of French in Manitoba \u2013 pivotal moments in history. Emotions aside, the story boils down to numbers (see figure 1). The dream of a Canada where francophones were at home across the land was still very much alive during the first half of the 20th<\/sup> century. One in every five francophones lived outside Quebec. Francophones accounted for a hefty 30 per cent of the Canadian population.<\/p>\n