The fate of Quebec Bill 21 will be decided by the courts, not by federal elections
Since then, a law prohibiting police, prison guards, provincial judges and prosecutors, as well as public school teachers from wearing religious vests or symbols has increasingly been used in campaign chat.
Monday's English-language broadcast of the bill, 21 as the provincial laws are well-known, took more time than Alberta's economic figures or Canada's currently awkward relationship with China.
The debate prompted Quebec Prime Minister François Legault to join the campaign, again demanding that federal parties in general, and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau in particular, "not stand against the will of the Quebecers" on secularism.
The Provincial Court of Appeal will decide shortly whether the most controversial sections of Bill 21 should be suspended until its constitutionality has been confirmed.
Somewhat ironically, in this scenario, the Legault government itself, in its own interest, could shorten the delays in making a decisive decision by allowing the federal government to refer the matter directly to the Supreme Court.
In one way or another, it is a virtual certainty that at some point the bill will reach the documents of the 21 highest courts. (Given the usual glacial pace of the Canadian judiciary, it may take longer than the political life of the three main leaders to discuss how their party-led federal government would approach this issue hypothetically.)
But assuming the Supreme Court comes up for debate in the next federal government, it is likely that Ottawa - under any party and despite their current rhetoric - will jump into the fray.
Trudeau's position, which he does not rule out - if the Liberals should be re-elected to the government - joins the challenge of the 21st Bill, is merely a marginal position compared to the conservative leader Andrew Scheer and NDP Jagmeet Singh.
In fact, the position of the Liberal leader reflects what has been customary not only for the federal government but also for his Quebec counterparts.
In the past, both levels of government have obviously intervened in litigation that has revolved around their respective constitutional jurisdictions or the scope of Charter rights.
On this basis, the Legault government is now a supporter of British Columbia, which is trying to limit its authority to the amount of fossil fuel passing through the province, and to support various conservative leaders in the legal battle. has won a federal carbon tax.
The extension of the Trans Mountain pipeline is not happening anywhere in Legault's political backyard and its government supports the principle of carbon pricing, but Quebec says it is in any case a federal violation of provincial rights.
With all this in mind, Scheer's categorical assertion that the Conservative Government will forever be left out of the challenge of Bill 21 must be taken into account with great cereals.
And Singh's recent claims about the potential need for the NDP federal government to join the battle at the Supreme Court level are less flimsy than a belated attempt to bring its position under the control of a federal party.
It would be quite a precedent for the federal government to abandon any political frontier by refusing to place its constitutional basis in the Supreme Court.
And they would be the first to strongly condemn the idea that the will of the majority of the province should be the last word on minority rights if another province applied that rule to French rights.