Yakabuski – It’s official: The Supreme Court’s ruling on Bill 21 will be one for the ages

Indeed:

…Nevertheless, the fact that two provincial appeal courts have now come to contradictory decisions touching on the judicial review of laws shielded by the notwithstanding clause means the Supreme Court must inevitably settle the issue. 

Its ruling on Bill 21 will hence carry widespread implications for governments across Canada, either freeing them to employ the notwithstanding clause with impunity, or subjecting them to potential rebuke – in the form of judicial declarations – if they invoke Section 33.

It remains unclear whether the Supreme Court will render its decision before Quebeckers go to the polls next year. Even so, with the Parti Québécois seeking to build on its momentum after another decisive by-election win this week, the Supreme Court case on Bill 21 will figure prominently in the sovereigntist party’s campaign pitch to francophone voters. PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon said the Supreme Court’s move to grant leave to appeal to Bill 21’s opponents “confirms to us that the federal regime is determined to combat Quebeckers’ democratic choices.” 

How much will the top court take into consideration a potential political backlash in Quebec in determining whether to overturn the Quebec Court of Appeal’s ruling on Bill 21? With the PQ on track for a stunning comeback in the 2026 vote, increasing the likelihood of another sovereignty referendum by 2030, the question has to be on the judges’ minds. 

Source: It’s official: The Supreme Court’s ruling on Bill 21 will be one for the ages

Yakabuski: Le déluge [Supreme Court hearings on Quebec Laïcité Bill] 

Of note:

…En permettant à un si grand nombre d’opposants à la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État québécois d’intervenir devant le plus haut tribunal du pays, le juge en chef de la Cour suprême, Richard Wagner, souhaite aller au fond des choses afin de dissiper tout doute sur l’utilisation préventive de la disposition de dérogation. Les Canadiens ne méritent rien de moins. Mais le processus risque d’être houleux.

Source: Le déluge

… By allowing so many opponents of the Quebec State Secularism Act to intervene before the highest court in the country, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Richard Wagner, wishes to get to the bottom of things in order to dispel any doubt about the preventive use of the waiver provision. Canadians deserve nothing less. But the process is likely to be stormy.

Record number of groups to speak at Supreme Court case against Quebec secularism law 

As expected given stakes. Case to watch:

A record number of groups have been given standing to present legal arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada as it hears a challenge to Quebec’s secularism law, a case that could reshape how governments across the country use the Charter’s notwithstanding clause.

At issue is Quebec’s Bill 21, a 2019 law that bans public-sector workers, including teachers and police, from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs or crosses at work. The Quebec government used Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to shield the law from legal challenges.

The notwithstanding clause allows a government to override fundamental rights such as freedom of religion. Courts in Quebec have twice upheld Bill 21, rejecting an array of legal challenges and ruling the province’s use of the notwithstanding clause was valid. Last January, the Supreme Court agreed to take on the politically explosive case.

Last week, Chief Justice Richard Wagner granted standing to 38 outside groups – interveners – to file their legal views, which are due in mid-September.

It is a record number of interveners, according to Supreme Advocacy, an Ottawa-based firm that closely tracks the top court. Interveners include the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the Ontario Human Rights Commission….

Source: Record number of groups to speak at Supreme Court case against Quebec secularism law

Urback: A wedge has emerged on religious freedom. Pierre Poilievre is on the right side of it

Someone needs to ask Poilievre regarding the niqab to see if his approach applies arguably to more extreme attire, where public opinion is more opposed:

….Mr. Poilievre has been clear about his opposition to Bill 21 since he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2022. And to his credit, he said the same thing, in French, just last week during Radio-Canada’s Cinq chefs, une élection program. “We shouldn’t have a state that forces people to wear or not wear something,” he said. When pressed by one of the interviewers on whether that should include people in positions of authority, he noted that a member of the RCMP that has been assigned to protect his family wears a turban. “He’s ready to save my life. He’s ready to save my children’s lives by giving his. Am I going to say that he shouldn’t have a job because he wears a turban? I don’t agree.”

Few outside of Quebec took note of Mr. Poilievre’s response, with the exception of one particular network: the Punjabi edition of OMNI Television. In a subsequent one-on-one interview, the reporter asked Mr. Poilievre a similar question, to which he gave a nearly identical response. “I don’t think the government should tell people what clothing to wear,” he added.

Mr. Carney, by contrast, has declined to say anything of substance on the law. When asked earlier this month what he thinks of expanding Bill 21 to include volunteers and whether he thinks the law is discriminatory, he replied in French, “I don’t have an opinion on that.” The question for him, he said, is about the government’s pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause as it relates to Bill 21. It’s about as safe a response as one can muster considering the remarkable wave of support Mr. Carney is currently riding in Quebec.

There is a path to electoral success for Mr. Poilievre outside of Quebec (though it would help if the Bloc could regain some of the support it’s been bleeding to the Liberals), as demonstrated by the Harper Conservatives in 2011. The Harper government, however, had the incumbent advantage in that election, and it succeeded in part because of the skilled and co-ordinated outreach to immigrant communities led by Jason Kenney, who had been minister of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism.

Mr. Poilievre’s defence of religious freedom will resonate in areas such as Brampton and Mississauga, which contain some of the most ethnically and religiously diverse federal ridings in Canada, but at the moment, the Liberals are projected to sweep much of the region. These areas are accessible, though; they are Progressive Conservative ridings provincially, and did vote Conservative in the 2011 election, which, granted, was a political lifetime ago. It will take more than one story about Mr. Poilievre’s personal RCMP detail, obviously, and it would be ignorant to presume that voters in the region would swing over just one issue, but this is one particular wedge that carries with it deep meaning for millions of people across Canada. And it just so happens that Mr. Poilievre is on the right side of it.

Source: A wedge has emerged on religious freedom. Pierre Poilievre is on the right side of it

Khan: Gender-equality rights, it turns out, aren’t safe from the notwithstanding clause

Of note:

… Perhaps the most jarring analysis is the Court’s dismissal of arguments by the bill’s opponents based on section 28, which enshrines gender-equality rights in the Charter. That argument makes the point that Bill 21 disproportionately restricts the freedom of religion and expression of Muslim women compared to men. The notwithstanding clause cannot be used to shield laws that discriminate between women and men – i.e., it cannot override section 28.

In fact, during the drafting of the Charter, Canadian women demanded the exclusion of section 28 from the notwithstanding clause. They had the foresight to ensure that gender-equality rights could not be denied by the potential whims of future governments.

But Quebec’s appeals court took great pains to explain that section 28 is, in fact, included in the notwithstanding clause. How? Well, by actually being included in each of the rights enshrined in sections 2 and 7 to 15, and thus having no stand-alone value in of itself.

For example, the Court considered a hypothetical law that gives police the power to detain and search all women unaccompanied by a male in public between midnight and 5 a.m. This violates sections 8 (security against unreasonable search) and 9 (no arbitrary detention). The Court argues that if the notwithstanding clause was invoked to shield the law, section 28 cannot be used to declare the law unconstitutional on the basis of gender inequality, since its only value lies in its association with existing rights – not rights that have been suspended.

The Court’s logic reminds me of the following imperfect analogy: it’s the pre-1960era, section 28 is an unmarried woman, and her only value is through her association with a man, say a father, a brother, a husband, a son (any one of sections 2 and 7-15). Where no such man exists, she has no real inherent value of her own.

The Court’s logic is also dangerous, as it means there is no real protection for women against discriminatory laws if a legislature pre-emptively invokes the notwithstanding clause. Her personal agency and equal opportunity can be taken away at the behest of a hostile legislature. Just ask Muslim women in Quebec.

Source: Gender-equality rights, it turns out, aren’t safe from the notwithstanding clause

Conservatives clarify opposition to Bill 21 following vote for notwithstanding clause

Not sure that they will be able to appease all the various groups, whether community or regional, with this approach of trying to have it both ways:

The federal Conservatives are trying to reassure the World Sikh Organization of Canada that the party remains opposed to Quebec’s secularism law after its MPs voted in support of a provision the province used to make it into law.

On Monday, the Conservatives voted en masse in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion recognizing that provinces have a “legitimate right” to use the notwithstanding clause, including pre-emptively.

In Tuesday’s letter to Balpreet Singh, a spokesman for the Sikh association, deputy Conservative leader Tim Uppal said the Liberals are trying to spin a narrative that the Conservatives explicitly support the “pre-emptive use” of the clause.

The clause is a provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows provincial and federal governments to pass laws that circumvent parts of the Charter for a period of up to five years.

When the clause is invoked pre-emptively, it effectively prevents anyone from launching a legal challenge in court.

“We’re talking about the suspension of human rights and the erosion of the charter,” Singh said. “And that’s a huge hit. Not just for minorities, but for all Canadians.”

The Sikh organization is among groups vocally opposed to Quebec’s secularism law, which bans some public servants in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols such as turbans at work.

Premier Francois Legault’s government invoked the notwithstanding clause to usher in the law, as well as Bill 96, which reforms provincial language laws.

In 2021, the Ontario government used the notwithstanding clause to restore parts of the Election Finances Act. It also invoked the clause last year to impose a new contract on education workers, but quickly backed down from the measure.

In his letter, Uppal says the notwithstanding provision is a “long-standing part” of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the ability of provinces to use it is “the legal reality.”

He goes on to say Trudeau’s government has “not made any attempts to change it,” despite having been in power since 2015.

“Since Bill 21 was introduced in March of 2019, the Liberal government has taken no action in the courts to oppose it,” Uppal said.

Uppal says that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been clear he is against the Quebec law, and while he respects the province’s ability to pass its own legislation, he hopes it is repealed.

Singh said Tuesday that he appreciates the clarification, but is disappointed with the Conservatives choosing to vote for a motion that appears to be “empowering” provinces to use the clause.

“You can’t say that they can use the notwithstanding clause willy-nilly,” he suggested, while also arguing against Bill 21.

Source: Conservatives clarify opposition to Bill 21 following vote for notwithstanding clause

Labelle: Amira Elghawaby et le 59% de racistes québécois

The poll referred to in the Elghawaby/Farber op-ed was in 2019, not 2007, and discomfort with Muslims in Quebec has polled somewhat higher than elsewhere in Canada over various polls and time periods.

Quebec periodically has these debates, as Labelle is right to remind us, and of course polling reflects the issues and controversies of the day, and the specific formulation of questions:

Les déclarations de l’ancienne journaliste Amira Elghawaby, nommée au poste de représentante spéciale du Canada chargée de la lutte contre l’islamophobie, suscitent un tollé, avec raison. Elle a, entre autres fausses nouvelles, fait référence aux résultats d’un sondage réalisé en 2007 par la firme Léger selon lesquels 59 % des Québécois se considéraient comme racistes. En tant que journaliste, elle aurait pu examiner de plus près ce sondage pour en constater les failles. Mais un quelconque objectif plus ou moins caché l’aura sans doute emporté sur son éthique de travail.

Le fatidique sondage de 2007

Le 15 janvier 2007, en plein contexte de débats intenses sur les accommodements raisonnables, après que le conseil municipal d’Hérouxville eut adopté un code de conduite ciblant les accommodements religieux, Le Journal de Montréal publiait un sondage réalisé par la firme Léger Marketing par le biais de deux sondages Internet, entre décembre 2006 et janvier 2007, avec un titre choc : « 59 % des Québécois se disent racistes ».

Or, à l’instar de mes collègues Rachad Antonius et Jean-Claude Icart, chercheurs spécialisés comme moi en sociologie du racisme, ces résultats m’apparaissaient immédiatement suspects. Dans la foulée, nous avons publié deux articles à ce sujet, l’un dans La Presse, l’autre dans la revue Éthique publique. Selon notre analyse, plusieurs raisons expliquaient ces résultats aberrants : une définition douteuse du racisme, l’agrégation de catégories non agrégeables, ce que l’on apprenait des attitudes concernant les accommodements raisonnables en comparaison, et l’absence des Premières Nations.

Une définition douteuse et des résultats contradictoires

La définition scientifique du racisme consiste en ceci : « Une idéologie qui se traduit par des préjugés, des pratiques de discrimination, de ségrégation et de violence, impliquant des rapports de pouvoir entre des groupes sociaux, qui a une fonction de stigmatisation, de légitimation et de domination, et dont les logiques d’infériorisation et de différenciation peuvent varier dans le temps et l’espace ».

Or, les sondés devaient réagir à une définition lacunaire : « … au niveau populaire, tous comportements, paroles, gestes ou attitudes désagréables, si mineurs soient-ils à l’égard d’une autre culture… ». Il est peu probable que tous aient saisi la signification profonde du terme « racisme » pour ensuite se juger « racistes ». En fait, ils devaient répondre à des questions (12 à 22) concernant davantage les relations interculturelles, voire l’ethnocentrisme, plutôt que le racisme. Il y avait donc d’entrée de jeu une utilisation déficiente du mot racisme pour exprimer toute une gamme d’attitudes délicates interprétables de façon variable.

Un deuxième problème était le regroupement des sous-catégories (fortement raciste, moyennement raciste, faiblement raciste, pas du tout raciste). Ceux et celles qui se disaient fortement racistes étaient fusionnés avec ceux et celles qui se disaient moyennement ou faiblement racistes, d’où le fameux total de 59 %. Or, que signifiaient exactement le « moyennement raciste » ou le « légèrement raciste » ?

Autre donnée contradictoire : la grande majorité des Québécois (77 %), tout comme la majorité des membres des « communautés culturelles » (80 %) estimaient qu’il n’y a pas de « races » humaines plus douées que d’autres (question 3). Et 78 % des membres des dites « communautés culturelles » déclaraient se sentir bien accueillis.

Comment expliquer ces résultats si 59 % des Québécois étaient racistes ?

D’autres contradictions sur les accommodements raisonnables

Il faut souligner que le sondage Léger Marketing de janvier 2007 s’est tenu dans un contexte chargé. L’opinion publique était chauffée à blanc par les politiciens et les médias sur la question des accommodements raisonnables à caractère religieux.

Dans le même sondage, Léger a donc cru bon d’introduire deux questions sur cet enjeu de société : « Quel énoncé correspond le mieux à votre opinion ? 1. Tous les immigrants devraient respecter les lois et règlements du Québec même si cela va à l’encontre de certaines croyances religieuses ou pratiques culturelles ; 2 « Il est nécessaire d’adopter des accommodements à nos lois et règlements pour ne pas obliger les immigrants à aller à l’encontre de leurs croyances religieuses ou pratiques culturelles ». Le résultat obtenu fut le suivant : « La très grande majorité des Québécois (83 %) croient que les immigrants devraient respecter les lois et les règlements du Québec, même si cela va à l’encontre de certaines croyances religieuses ou pratiques culturelles. Chez les membres des communautés culturelles, 74 % sont du même avis ».

En conclusion, on peut aussi se demander pourquoi le sondeur distinguait « communautés culturelles » et « Québécois », une question de fond dont l’importance politique et citoyenne est immense. Et pourquoi la dimension autochtone a été alors complètement évacuée de l’enquête  Le Journal de Montréal publiait en janvier 2007 un tableau intitulé « L’immigration en 5 minutes », dans lequel les 130 165 membres des « Premières Nations » figuraient parmi les « importantes communautés culturelles du Québec » issues de l’immigration ! Une gaffe désespérante…

On peut aussi se demander s’il ne serait pas pertinent de mener des sondages sur les types de préjugés relevant du Québec bashing systémique qui sévit au sein des minorités (un prototype étant celui pratiqué par Mme Elghawaby), à l’égard des Québécois dits « de souche », un incontestable tabou à affronter.

Source: Amira Elghawaby et le 59% de racistes québécois

Phillips: Storm over Elghawaby appointment proof of need for someone like her in the job

Representative of the favourable commentary to her appointment. I agree, if she hadn’t been public on her opposition to Bill 21 and the public attitudes behind it and previous Quebec debates, she would have no credibility. It is more with respect with her other positions that questions can be asked:

It took 18 months for the Trudeau government to carry through on its promise to name a “special representative” to combat Islamophobia. It took just 24 hours for that appointment to blow up in its face.

Last Thursday the government announced it had named Amira Elghawaby to the position. Elghawaby is well known to us at the Star; she’s been contributing thoughtful, insightful articles to our opinion pages for several years on all sorts of subjects, with a focus on social justice issues.

It was an excellent and well-deserved appointment. The government patted itself on the back for making it a few days before the anniversary of the Quebec City mosque massacre. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called it an “important step” in the fight against “hatred in all its forms.”

But no good deed, as they say, goes unpunished. Elghawaby has been outspoken, as you’d expect, against Quebec’s Bill 21, the frankly discriminatory law that bars people wearing religious symbols (notably Muslim women) from holding certain government jobs. So Montreal’s La Presse reported that Trudeau had just appointed someone who portrays Quebecers as “anti-Muslim.”

Cue the outrage in Quebec. A federal Liberal minister (Pablo Rodriguez) professed to be “profoundly insulted” as a Quebecer by Elghawaby’s comments. Trudeau called on her to “explain” them. By Monday, the Quebec government was demanding her resignation. And Pierre Poilievre found the time to craft a video attacking Trudeau for appointing someone he smeared as “anti-Quebec, anti-Jewish and anti-police.”

Poilievre’s attack is particularly sleazy. His real target isn’t Elghawaby. She’s just road kill in his assault on the Trudeau government and all its works.

It’s also BS. The idea that Elghawaby thinks Quebecers are Muslim haters is based on an article she co-wrote in 2019 for the Ottawa Citizen with Bernie Farber, who is a human-rights activist as well as being Jewish. They cited a poll showing 88 per cent of Quebecers who hold anti-Muslim views supported Bill 21, and wrote that “unfortunately” most Quebecers seemed at that moment to be swayed “by anti-Muslim sentiment.”

Frankly, viewed in the context of the time, when Quebec had just passed the most discriminatory law in modern Canadian history, the article is remarkably moderate. It decries the “tyranny of the majority” and ends with an appeal to uphold “basic human rights and dignity” for all. 

Elghawaby’s other supposedly offensive comments have also been twisted out of shape. As for being “anti-Jewish,” her appointment was welcomed by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the country’s leading Jewish organization, as well as by Irwin Cotler, Canada’s special representative on antisemitism. If she’d taken anti-Jewish positions, you’d think they’d have noticed.

I don’t agree with quite a bit of what Elghawaby has written, such as her view that Canada should abolish the monarchy. But so what? I haven’t seen a thing she’s written that goes beyond the bounds of reasonable debate (and no, I don’t include the occasional badly worded tweet). 

As a human-rights activist she challenges Canadian complacency, but that hardly disqualifies her from serving (in the words of the government’s announcement) as a “champion, adviser, expert and representative” on fighting anti-Muslim hatred. On the contrary.

Some will argue that, regardless of all this, her appointment is “divisive” — the evidence being the reaction to it in Quebec. But the truth is that while hatred of all sorts knows no political boundaries, there is a particular problem with the way Quebec handles issues of religious tolerance and minorities.

The evidence for that is plain for all to see in Bill 21 itself, which is blatantly discriminatory and racist in effect if not in intent. Sure, there’s a complicated history behind all this. But if Islamophobia can’t be frankly confronted in Quebec, of all places, there’s no point in having a national representative on the issue.

On Monday, the prime minister said he’s satisfied with Elghawaby’s explanation of her past remarks and she will remain in place. That’s absolutely the right decision. In fact, the uproar around her appointment is the best possible demonstration of the need for putting someone like her in the job.

Source: Phillips: Storm over Elghawaby appointment proof of need for someone like her in the job

Khan: The downfall of Quebec’s Bill 21 could come thanks to women

We will see:

The notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter is no longer an obscure legal term. Thanks to Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s recent use of Section 33 to prevent job action by education workers – he has invoked the clause, or threatened to do so, three times in four years – ordinary Canadians now know that their basic human rights can be suspended at any time. We aren’t talking about emergency measures here, nor are we discussing reasonable limits through democratic mechanisms; ours is the only constitutional democracy that potentially allows for the gutting of basic rights in the name of what a parliamentary majority deems a matter of governance.

Who could have foreseen the consequences of this clause?

Well, Canadian women, for one.

When the Charter was being drafted, women demanded equality rights – but they were derided at committee hearings for doing so. In 1980, Senator Harry Hays derisively countered by suggesting special rights for babies and children, since “all you girls will be out working and we’re not going to have anybody to look after them.” A year later, more than 1,300 women descended on Parliament Hill to assert equality rights in the Constitution, by affirming Section 15 on general equality and proposing Section 28, on gender equality rights.

Initially, the notwithstanding clause could have been used on Section 28, too. But women fought for its exclusion, having had the foresight to ensure that gender equality rights could not be denied by the potential whims of future governments. We owe them a great deal.

And yet, today, we see the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause leading to disproportionate damage to Muslim women in Quebec.

François Legault’s government has pre-emptively used the notwithstanding clause twice since 2019, to ensure the passage of two bills. One of them, Bill 21, bans some public-sector workers from wearing religious symbols, but lawyers have provided evidence at the Quebec Court of Appeal – which heard a legal challenge to the bill this month – that only Muslim women who wear the hijab have lost their jobs as a result of it.

Indeed, Quebec’s religious minorities have felt increased alienation and despair in recent years, according to the Association for Canadian Studies. Its survey found that the situation is particularly dire for Muslim women: 73 per cent of them said they’ve felt less safe in public since 2019, while 83 per cent said their confidence in their children’s future has worsened.

The Quebec government touted Bill 21 as a “feminist” law, but it has only reinforced prejudices, and given license to bigots. I know this firsthand: During a visit to Montreal, I was berated by a middle-aged francophone Uber driver for wearing the hijab. At the end of the ride, he asked me not to file a complaint. (Of course, I did the opposite.)

This all illustrates Bill 21′s egregious violation of Section 28 of the Charter – namely, that the law disproportionately affects women, and thus violates gender equality. Since the notwithstanding clause cannot override Section 28, Bill 21 could be seen by the courts as invalid – an argument that University of New Brunswick law professor Kerri Froc raised years ago, and is now gaining traction.

Quebec Muslim women are not wilting. They have protested alongside allies who believe in a Quebec where all individuals can thrive. Take, for example, Institut F, a Montreal-based organization that seeks to ensure Muslim women’s personal agency. Its programs provide resources so that each woman knows that she belongs, her voice matters and she is a valued member of society – even if the Quebec government thinks otherwise. At a recent Institut event, I met talented Muslim women in STEM fields such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology and data science – talent that Quebec needs to remain economically competitive. Yet, many of those women expressed doubts about thriving in a society that overtly discriminates against religious minorities.

Something may have to give on this front, too. The labour shortage is so acute in Quebec that the town of Hérouxville – infamous for issuing a code of conduct for immigrants warning them not to stone or burn women alive – is now actively courting newcomers. Today, neighbouring towns are helping migrants find halal food. Economic reality will force the realization that attracting workers means making all feel welcome – not just a select few.

Bill 21’s damage has been done – abetted by the notwithstanding clause. The women who fought to exclude Section 28 from the clause knew its dangers. As Canadians, we must continue that fight to guarantee basic rights for all, be they religious and linguistic minorities in Quebec, education workers in Ontario, or anyone threatened by the notwithstanding clause.

Source: The downfall of Quebec’s Bill 21 could come thanks to women

How Quebec’s 1995 referendum was a turning point for racist comments in political discourse that’s still felt

Of note:

Standing on a stage in Montreal Wednesday night, singer Allison Russell recalled what it was like to live in the city after the Parti Québécois lost the referendum 27 years ago.

“I was spat on, called a monkey and told to go back to Africa,” Russell, who is Black and was born in Montreal, told the audience.

In defeat, former premier Jacques Parizeau had blamed the 1995 loss on “money and ethnic votes.”

Russell, who was 17 at the time, said the comments sparked racist acts in the streets and contributed to her decision to move away shortly afterward. She compared the remark to recent comments about immigration made by Coalition Avenir Québec candidate Jean Boulet and party leader François Legault.

The topic has dominated political discourse in the last days and weeks of the campaign.

In a local debate on Radio-Canada last week, Boulet — who serves as both the province’s labour and immigration minister —  said “80 per cent of immigrants go to Montreal, don’t work, don’t speak French or don’t adhere to the values of Quebec society.”

After Radio-Canada brought the comments to light this week, Boulet issued an apology on Twitter, saying he misspoke and that the statement about immigrants not working and not speaking French “does not reflect what I think.”

Legault said Boulet didn’t deserve to keep the immigration file if re-elected. But Legault himself said Monday that welcoming more than 50,000 immigrants per year would be “a bit suicidal,”referring to the protection of the French language.

Earlier this month, Legault apologized for citing the threat of “extremism” and “violence” as well as the need to preserve Quebec’s way of life as reasons to limit the number of immigrants to the province.

Aly Ndiaye, a Quebec-city based historian and rapper also known as Webster, said he sees the 1995 referendum loss and Parizeau’s remark as a turning point for Quebec nationalism that made way for the kind of things Boulet and Legault have said this election campaign.

From inclusive nationalism to a change in Quebec identity

In the 1960s and 70s, Quebec’s nationalist movement was intent on being progressive and inclusive, Ndiaye said. The movement was inspired by decolonization and revolutions happening across the world at the time — it was looking “outward,” he said.

“After Parizeau, there was a closure,” Ndiaye said. Quebec nationalism turned inward, he added.

“There started to be a more exclusive vision of Quebec identity… That’s what Legault represents.”

What worries Ndiaye is the fact that such comments are rarely labelled as racist, despite the fact that they stem from a vision of society that sees immigrants and their descendants as “second-class citizens.”

“The Legault government is a racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic government,” Ndiaye said. “It’s aberrant.”

Hate calls

Fo Niemi, who founded the Montreal Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) in 1983, said he remembers the Parizeau moment clearly.

“I almost fell off my chair,” he said.

Niemi said the centre received hate calls in the days following the Oct. 30, 1995 vote and stopped answering the phone for two or three days as a result.

When it comes to racist comments made in this year’s provincial election, Niemi said that while there is a possibility they could lead to violence, or aggression against immigrants, they could also lead to an overall negative attitude in Quebec toward immigration and immigrants.

“Let’s be clear, we’re not talking about all immigrants. We’re talking about immigrants who are clearly identifiable, i.e. non-white immigrants.”

He agrees with Ndiaye about the hesitation to name racism.

“They don’t call a spade a spade,” Niemi said, calling the CAQ remarks “dog whistle politics,” which refers to the use of messages that convey a particular — usually racist — sentiment to a target audience.

Evelyn Calugay, who runs PINAY, a Filipino women’s rights group, said she remembers hearing about comments made to people in her community as well as to people of Chinese descent in 1995.

Stuff like, “You don’t know how to speak French? Go back to where you belong, where you came from,” Calugay said.

“They will always have somebody to blame and the people they have to blame are always the minorities, the marginalized — because they are a bunch of racists to me!” she said with a bit of a laugh.

Calugay came to Quebec in 1975 to work as a nurse. She is 76.

What happens after the election?

The CAQ isn’t the only party to have come under fire for anti-immigrant sentiments. Comments about Quebec Muslims from Parti Québécois candidates Lyne Jubinville, Suzanne Gagnon and Pierre Vanier and his wife Catherine Provost have surfaced in the past two weeks.

Vanier, the candidate for Rousseau, and Provost, the candidate for neighbouring L’Assomption, were both suspended by PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon Friday for posts they made on social media, one of which questioned the intelligence of Muslim women who wear head scarves.

Whatever the election result Monday, Niemi says his concern is what will happen afterward.

“Are we going to talk about the negative fallout of all of these, shall we say, hateful statements?” he said. “What credibility will the government have to address racism and xenophobia and any other negative consequence of these statements?”

As for Russell, the Quebec-born singer now lives in Nashville with her family and recently, after playing in well-known American folk bands, began a solo career with her album Outside Child.

Source: How Quebec’s 1995 referendum was a turning point for racist comments in political discourse that’s still felt