it's certainly true enough that carney's speech was remarkably naive. carney framed the relationship between canada's french and english as being some kind of historic anomaly of tolerance and enlightenment. the quebec nationalists jumped at that to point out centuries of assimilationist policy.
in fact, it's worth pointing out that the english did not do anything novel in quebec at all, but rather followed very clear existing british imperial precedent. the actual law in place in the british empire at the time, which the british empire applied all over the world, was that when you conquer a people in tact, you have to allow them to keep their own laws, language and religion. that wasn't something uniquely canadian, the british applied that rule everywhere, to everyone, and the british precedent actually came from roman law, as brought into the british system via common law. the romans allowed conquer people to keep their culture, so long as they paid their taxes. the issue was placed before the english judiciary, who studied it, and adopted the roman position.
there is nowhere in the broad british empire where the british conquered a people and enforced their language or laws on them. in india, for example, the local legislature only governed british settlers. the local indans were allowed to keep their laws. but, eventually, they opted to reform their system to adopt a legislature.
now, it's true that some random brits have run their mouth off over the years.
but quebec still has civil law, still speaks french and still has more catholics than protestants, even as it has moved towards a policy of secularism after the quiet revolution. canada has broadly followed the british imperial law, rooted in roman law, and allowed quebeckers to maintain their culture.