Roundup: Limited federal options on Bill 21

Posted on by

So, the fight over Bill 21 in Quebec is gaining some traction now that there have been real-world consequences, and a bunch of MPs (mostly Conservatives) who previously said nothing about it—and who previously supported odious things like “barbaric cultural practices tip lines” and “Canadian values tests”—are now speaking up and recanting previous positions. Which is good, but while everyone is hoping for some kind of federal response or action on the legislation, I’m not sure there is an actual avenue. Consider this from constitutional law professor Carissima Mathen:

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1469013986142298114

This is essentially what Justin Trudeau has been saying—he’s opposed to it, but this isn’t the time for the federal government to step in. That time will be when the fight reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, because then they have a legitimate avenue to be an intervenor in the case. Until then, they can say they oppose it—and they have much more so than other parties—but they’re also not making wild symbolic actions that won’t mean anything. And while both Erin O’Toole and Jagmeet Singh say they are personally opposed (and Singh has a legitimate dog in this fight), Singh has been somewhat blank on actions a federal government could take, while O’Toole made it clear he wouldn’t interfere in any way because a) provincial jurisdiction, and b) he’s spent his entire leadership trying to suck up to François Legault and out-Bloc the Bloc, for all of the good it did him in the election. And there are demographic considerations that play into the political calculations as well:

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert, lays out the political calculations and options for Trudeau and O’Toole when it comes to challenging Bill 21. Paul Wells adds a boatload of more context to the situation both federally and in Quebec, and gives some sharper thoughts as to why the federal government has vanishingly few levers but nevertheless has options.

Good reads:

  • Chrystia Freeland and Mary Ng have sent a strongly worded letter to American senators threatening retaliatory trade actions if they go ahead with that tax credit.
  • New federal COVID modelling shows cases spiking again even before the omicron variant takes hold, and if it does, cases will really spike.
  • David Lametti says the existing laws against intimidation aren’t sufficient for healthcare workers (but I am dubious).
  • Steven Guilbeault wants sales quotas for electric vehicles in place by the end of next year, which is a very ambitious timeline.
  • Marie-Claude Bibeau toured some of the devastated agricultural areas in British Columbia, and was apparently moved to tears by the situation.
  • Marci Ien is self-isolating after a suspected COVID exposure.
  • There remain questions if the government will be able to pass its remaining two priority bills before the Commons rises for the winter break.
  • There is talk of a possible diplomatic trip to Kabul—protected by special forces—in order to see about re-establishing a consular presence on the ground.
  • Iqaluit’s tap water is once again fit for consumption, after nearly two months of being unable to due to hydrocarbon contamination.
  • Ontario plans to clamp down on dubious “vaccine exemptions” so that they no longer need a doctor’s note that they could obtain simply by asking.
  • Robert Hiltz points out that Olympic games don’t just “sportswash” the human rights abuses of countries, they themselves come with human rights abuses.
  • My weekend column notes that today is the 90th anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, and why it’s an important day as the birth of the Crown of Canada.

Odds and ends:

Ottawa mayor Jim Watson has said he won’t run again, which may be for the best given the legacy he’s leaving of a broken LRT system.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

2 thoughts on “Roundup: Limited federal options on Bill 21”

  1. The cons are disgustingly disingenuous on the subject of anti-Muslim animus. They concern troll about the Uighurs and about Afghanistan but that’s all it is: phony overtures for “optics.” Media needs to remind O’Toole that he, himself voted against M-103 on similar weasel-word “semantic arguments” around “it doesn’t clearly define” Islamophobia, the same BS he allowed the religious extremists to get away with on conversion therapy.

    All it was, was a simple motion to condemn Islamophobia and acknowledge that yes, Canada suffers from it, while forming a study on ways to combat it — made all the more urgent by the fact that a MAGA maniac had just shot and killed innocent people at their mosque during Friday evening prayers. Instead he went right along with the “sharia law” fearmongering from Rebel and their ilk *that was responsible for radicalizing that shooter* — and the fact that it took place in Quebec only adds insult to injury.

    Has he ever publicly apologized to Iqra Khalid for the torment that she went through, let alone directed his caucus to do so? Literally no one should take anything the cons say with any validity whatsoever. Stephen Gordon is right about something else: disband the Conservative Party of Canada. It is beyond saving.

  2. The Trudeau government is “not making wild symbolic actions that won’t mean anything…”

    That’s never stopped them before!

Comments are closed.