The consensus seems to be that Quebecers, like Canadians in general, are far more focused on the impact of U.S. tariffs on the Canadian economy than on the typical concerns that usually dominate a federal election cycle.

But in Quebec, no matter what is happening south of the border, questions about provincial sovereignty and federal interference will always be asked.

In 2025, those questions are focused on two critical and contentious Quebec laws concerning language and provincial identity.

Bill 21 An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State, the so-called “secularism” law, was passed in 2019, and Bill 96, a massive amendment to the Charter of the French Language, was adopted three years later. Both laws invoke the “notwithstanding” clause in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the legislation — and the Quebec nation as conceived by the current provincial government — from judicial review.

Bill 21 bars public-sector workers, including teachers, from wearing any religious symbols at work. It has been challenged on multiple grounds in the provincial courts and in January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, with arguments likely to be scheduled sometime within the year. 

The federal government announced March 4 it intends to intervene in the appeal, leaving Prime Minister Mark Carney in a tight spot on the campaign trail.

On March 28, Carney said, “Our commitment is to ensure the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is respected and lived in this country, but we are fundamentally concerned with promoting all identities and all lived identities in this country.”

The prevaricating answer is the same one Carney gives to the language law.

He backs the promotion of the French language in Quebec and French as a non-negotiable in trade talks with the U.S., but he also says the Liberal government would intervene if a challenge to Bill 96 were made at the level of the Supreme Court.

Stumping at the Port of Montreal, Carney said, “We’ve made clear — I’ve made clear — that we will support the intervention at the Supreme Court and fully respect language rights. Let me also say that I understand, and we understand, the importance of reinforcing, promoting and supporting the French language in Quebec. And there are many ways that we are doing that.”

Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet was quick to respond.

“We already knew that the Liberals, if returned to power for a fourth time, would challenge Quebec secularism in the Supreme Court with money from Quebecers themselves. Now we have confirmation that they would do the same thing against Law 96 on French under Mark Carney. Is Mr. Trump’s threat becoming a pretext to weaken Quebec identity in the name of a Toronto leader’s Canadian multiculturalism? Mark Carney needs to be viewed with more suspicion.”

On March 31, well-known Quebec media personality Mathieu Bock-Côté called Carney out in a Journal de Montreal opinion piece saying the Liberal leader intends to “use the federal state and its most powerful political tribunal, the Supreme Court,” to dismantle both laws.

“I should point out, since this is not a detail,” wrote Bock-Côté, “that he clearly doesn't know the society he intends to subject to his worldview.”

In Vaughan, Ont., in response to a question about the secularism law, Carney borrowed the famous phrase used by Quebec politician Clifford Lincoln in 1988 at a particularly fraught moment in the language battles.

“Do we have rights in Canada, or not? A right is a right is a right,” said Carney.

Lincoln had stood on the floor of the National Assembly and famously declared, “Rights are rights are rights” after the Quebec government adopted Bill 178. That law was an act of defiance to the Supreme Court ruling in Ford v. Quebec that mandating unilingual commercial signage was unconstitutional. It was the vote on the bill that was the occasion of Lincoln’s speech, and it was his vote against the bill that necessitated his resignation from cabinet. 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has found himself equally stuck in the federal-provincial quicksand. When asked about the language law, Poilievre has taken the customary position of the Conservatives that “provinces have the right to make their own laws.”

But he has also come out strongly against the secularism law, a law many Quebecers believe is central to the provincial project of self-determination.

On April 3, on Radio-Canada's Cinq chefs, une élection program, Poilievre said  while he supports Quebec secularism he is opposed to the law in question.

“There is an RCMP officer who protects my family who wears a turban,” said Poilievre. “He's ready to save my life. He's ready to save my children's lives by giving his. Am I going to say he shouldn't have a job because he wears a turban? I don't agree with that.”