Legault fires red bullets at Trudeau

In very firm publications on his social networks, the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, criticized his counterpart in Ottawa for leading “a frontal attack against the ability of our nation to protect our collective rights”.

This is a response to an interview given by the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, to The Press. Trudeau mentions that he plans to turn to the Supreme Court to further regulate the use of the notwithstanding provision, enshrined in the Constitution.

Better known as the “notwithstanding clause”, this provision allows a provincial or federal government to exempt a law from any judicial remedy within five years of its adoption, even if the said law does not respect certain rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. rights and freedoms.

The Legault government notably used this provision to pass its Law on State Secularism, or “Bill 21” as well as for Bill 96, which amends the Charter of the French language.

“The protection of individual rights is important, but it should not be set up as an absolute dogma as Justin Trudeau does,” adds François Legault in his Facebook post. “Quebec will never accept such a weakening of its rights. Never ! »

Reactions from the political class

The reactions of the opposition parties were not long in coming. On Twitter, the parliamentary leader of Québec solidaire, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, attacked the two prime ministers. “François Legault tweets angry at Justin Trudeau, but everyone has seen with health transfers that he has no power relationship with Ottawa,” he wrote. He also attacked Trudeau, insisting that he had “no lesson to give in the defense of human rights, talk to the Aboriginals”.

The PQ member for Matane-Matapédia, Pascal Bérubé, alluded to Quebec independence in a mocking reply to François Legault: “There must be a solution so that only Quebeckers decide on important laws for our nation. »

Several deputies were also present at the deployment of the largest fleur-de-lis in history, Saturday afternoon, in Montreal. The event took place on the occasion of the 75^e anniversary of the adoption of the flag. The duty took the opportunity to question the politicians present.

“What I want is for the Prime Minister to defend our rights, but to use the balance of power we have to ensure that the money we give to Ottawa comes back to us, in particular for health “, hammered the co-spokesperson of Quebec solidaire, Manon Massé.

The Liberal MP for Viau, Frantz Benjamin, invoked his duty of reserve as Vice-President of the National Assembly. “In the Liberal Party, we are for the protection of the values ​​and interests of Quebecers,” he contented himself with mentioning.

The CAQ MNA for Anjou–Louis-Riel, Karine Boivin Roy, refused to answer questions from the To have to. No Parti Québécois MP was present at the event.

No major change

Even if the Supreme Court were to change the parameters of the notwithstanding provision, it would remain applicable, says the professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Ottawa and former Liberal minister Benoît Pelletier. “The Supreme Court could come to the conclusion that the clause applies only after a court judgment,” he explains in an interview, seeing this modification as the only one possible at present.

Currently, a government can use the “notwithstanding clause” when passing its bill. The Supreme Court would have the power to remove the preventive nature of the clause. So a court would have to make a judgment on a bill and then the government would have to decide to pass the notwithstanding clause in order to protect its law. For the governments that would adopt a law at the end of this process, “the political price to pay would be even greater,” explains Mr. Pelletier.

“For Quebec, the derogation provision is a tool for asserting its specificity within Canada,” believes Mr. Pelletier. He believes “that Trudeau is responding to pressure from English Canada” by attacking this clause. “But I understand Trudeau’s concern that populist or center-right governments want to use the notwithstanding clause more often,” he adds.

To see in video