Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 was conceived as a measure of constitutional protection of the collective rights of Catholic or Protestant minorities, obtained before the colonies entered confederation. A vast majority of Catholics were Francophones while Protestants were Anglophones. When Ontario decided to impose the teaching in English in all provincial schools, French Catholics tried to invoke s 93 as a bar to that decision, in vain: the courts at the time interpreted s 93 in a narrow and literal way. In contrast, s 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was interpreted by the courts in a contextual, liberal and evolutive manner, recognizing an implicit right to manage and control minority language schools. This paper aims to initiate a dialogue between these two constitutional guarantees aimed at the same minorities, the French language minority outside of Quebec and the English language minority in Quebec. It will also study the two main trials that have marked their judicial interpretation, Mackell at the beginning of the 20th century and Mahe at the end of the same century. The structural difference between the two clauses will be shown, and the judicial interpretative techniques used to give them meaning will be illustrated. Drawing from excerpts of the decisions at each judicial level, judicial notions of minority rights, of the role of constitutional guarantees and of the constitutional vision of Canada illustrated by these decisions will be analyzed.