John Ivison: A Bill 21 explosion could engulf Carney, Quebec and Canada

Article content

My take is very much conditioned by my research on a forthcoming biography of former justice minister Irwin Cotler.

Article content

Cotler was a prominent academic in Quebec in 1976 when René Lévesque’s PQ government was elected and pushed for a referendum in spring 1980.

Article content

At the time, Cotler noted the apprehension of the Jewish community, especially over Bill 101, which established French as the sole language in the province.

Article content

But Cotler was relaxed about the separatists being in power, reassured by the knowledge that Lévesque’s Quebec nationalism was inclusive and the PQ’s use of the term “Québécois” referred to all inhabitants of the province, not just French Canadians.

Article content

St-Pierre Plamondon has referred to an inclusive civic nationalism that applies to all residents and citizens. In his victory speech, he pledged to govern for all Quebecers, without exception.

Article content

Yet, even more so than the CAQ government that he has just defeated, the sovereignty project at the core of his mandate is about the promotion of the French-speaking nation and protecting Quebec’s distinctiveness.

Article content

Article content

On a recent appearance on the popular Quebec talk show Tout le monde en parle, St-Pierre Plamondon was the only party leader who abstained when he was asked whether he supported the proposal in France to ban Muslim women from wearing a hijab in public, as proposed by the National Rally party.

Article content

The next day, he “clarified” his position, saying there was no question of forbidding religious signs in public.

Article content

But this is not Levésque’s PQ.

Article content

People protest against Quebec’s Bill 21 in Montreal on Saturday, May 9, 2026. Photo by John Mahoney/Montreal Gazette/Postmedia

Article content

Cotler said the line of intolerance was crossed by Bill 21, saying it is constrictive. “It does not so much separate religion from the state, as it authorizes the state to interfere with religion,” he said.

Article content

He also condemned the excessive use of Section 33, which he acknowledged in 1982 was “a necessary compromise” for prime minister Pierre Trudeau to pass the Charter, but one that came with a hefty price tag.

Article content

“I remember going to see Trudeau at one point. He said the choice was not between a Charter of Rights with a notwithstanding clause and one without. It was between a Charter of Rights with a notwithstanding clause or no Charter at all. But I think it was his expectation that it would rarely be used,” he said.

Article content

Article content

That expectation has proven overly optimistic.

Article content

Section 33, or what Quebec calls the “parliamentary sovereignty clause,” has been invoked 25 times since 1982, predominantly by Quebec to shield constitutionally dubious laws that it claims are necessary to protect its distinct culture.

Article content

The provincial government’s lawyer, Isabelle Brunet, who appeared before the top court in March, argued the clause was introduced as part of a “pivotal, historic political compromise” and explicitly grants legislatures the sovereign authority to enact laws that override certain Charter rights. Quebec argued that the text of the Constitution allows pre-emptive invocation (or at least doesn’t prevent it).

Article content

Justices asked Brunet whether the Supreme Court could acknowledge a Charter violation, even if the law remains valid.

Article content

She argued the court should not issue a declaratory judgment specifying which rights the bill breaches, since it might lead to public confusion.

Article content

But it seems that this is the direction some of the justices are heading: a fudged decision that says Bill 21 is discriminatory but allows it to stand.