How Quebec's Bill 96 became campaign issue in federal election

Article content

Quebec’s language law reform, known as Bill 96, has suddenly become a hot-button issue in Canada’s federal elections.

The legislation was cited as a trade barrier by the United States just as President Donald Trump was poised to make his latest tariff announcements, spurring Premier François Legault to proclaim “there’s no compromising on French.”

Recommended Videos

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

How Quebec's Bill 96 became campaign issue in federal election Back to video

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Play Video

At the same time, federal Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s assertion that his government would intervene in any Supreme Court challenge to Bill 96 was cited by Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet as a prime example of why Quebecers need to favour the Bloc. On Tuesday, he accused the Liberals of “dismantling the very measures that allow Quebecers to live in French.”

So what exactly is Bill 96, and why is it suddenly creating so much consternation?

Bill 96

Quebec’s new language legislation was officially enacted in June 2022 to toughen up the previous language law, the Charter of the French Language, dating back to 1977 and known as Bill 101.

“An act respecting French, the official and common language of Quebec,” Bill 96 was created by the Coalition Avenir Québec to increase protection of French. It includes making changes to how businesses operate, who can receive government services in English, CEGEP enrolment and the predominance of French on signs and trademarks.

Many of the changes have been controversial, and the law is facing several lawsuits that contend it infringes on the language rights of the English community and contravenes the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights and freedoms.

U.S. objection

Every year, the U.S. publishes the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. It lists perceived foreign barriers to U.S. exports globally.

In the 2025 edition released in March, “Quebec’s Bill 96” is listed among technical trade barriers. The report says U.S. businesses have expressed concern about their federally listed trademarks for products manufactured after June 1 of this year, when the provisions of Bill 96 pertaining to trademarks and signage come into force.

Trademark issues

The U.S. government is concerned about new regulations that businesses will have to inspect their packaging and labelling on products sold in Quebec and translate any part that contains a “generic term” or a “description of the product.” (The U.S notes it brought up these issues to Canada at least twice in 2024.)

An example given by Quebec of changes required: Previously, a hand soap company could have the descriptor “Pear and lavender” and “Kills 99.9% of bacteria” in English only, or another language, on its bottle. Now both descriptors would have to be translated into French.

Companies found not in compliance face fines of up to $90,000 a day.

U.S. officials say the changes would be onerous and may contravene international trademark regulations.

Quebec businesses have also been critical, saying it will convince many companies not to sell their products in Quebec’s relatively small market or to increase their prices.

Quebec leaders defended the law as reasonable and necessary for the protection of French and said they have no intention of backing down. All the federal party leaders echoed this sentiment this week.

Quebec said the “trade irritant” was one among hundreds cited in the report and was not a large issue for the U.S. But critics warn it could be used as more fodder as Trump prepares to issue salvos in his trade war with Canada.

Supreme Court intervention

On Friday, Carney said his government would intervene in any Supreme Court challenge to Bill 96.

“We will always defend the charter. We’ve made clear, I’ve made clear, that we will support (an) intervention at the Supreme Court and fully respect the language rights,” Carney said in Montreal.

His office clarified later that the Liberal party would intervene because it does not agree with Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Bill 96 that protects it from constitutional challenges.

Bill 96 has not been challenged in the Supreme Court to date, but there are several lower court challenges against it by groups who say it restricts English-language services and that the Quebec government has unilaterally amended the Canadian Constitution to reinforce French-language protection at the expense of English-speaking communities.

In January, the Supreme Court said it would hear a challenge from several groups to Bill 21, Quebec’s secularism law that bars government workers from wearing religious symbols while on the job. The Liberal government at the time said it would intervene in the case to defend fundamental rights, including the right of religion, contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In March, the federal government officially filed notice that it would intervene.

Quebec backlash

Carney’s promise to intervene on Bill 96 was immediately blasted by the Bloc Québécois and some provincial parties as proof of the federal government undermining Quebec’s efforts to protect French.

“We already knew that the Liberals, if returned to power for a fourth time, would challenge Quebec’s secularism in the Supreme Court with Quebecers’ own money,” Blanchet wrote in a post on X. “Now we have confirmation they will do the same against Bill 96 on French under Mark Carney.”

Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre stated he would leave Bill 96 alone.

“Provinces have the right to make their own laws,” he said.

Carney is “openly hostile to Quebec,” so Quebecers must back the Bloc Québécois to defend the French language and the province’s economy from Trump, Blanchet said.

Carney responded that there is “no contradiction” between protecting the French language and potentially challenging Bill 96 in court in order to protect the Canadian Charter.