Through its spokesperson Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, Québec solidaire announced this week that if the party wins the elections of October 3, the new government will modify the Law on the secularism of the State (“law 21” ) to allow all employees of the Quebec State to wear religious symbols, with the exception of signs that cover the face or prevent the person from doing their job properly.
I hear that when reading this, many Liberal activists said to themselves that such should have been the position of the PLQ from the first reading of the bill. Unfortunately, the party leaders were then in the process of negotiating their “nationalist turn”; the party did indeed oppose Bill 21, but much more timidly than it should have.
Québec solidaire is adopting a courageous position here, whatever the columnist Joseph Facal may say, who, in the pages of the Montreal Journal, spoke of “crass opportunism”. Adopting an unpopular position on principle seems to me the opposite of opportunism.
So here is the PLQ doubled by QS in terms of the defense of individual freedoms; who would’ve believed that ?
Mr. Nadeau-Dubois added that a united government would seek the opinion of the Quebec Court of Appeal concerning the Act respecting the secularism of the State: does it respect the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms? ? Excellent idea.
Remember that the law on secularism sets aside the first 38 articles of this Charter adopted by the National Assembly in 1975. These articles protect, for example, the right to life; freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; the right to the safeguard of one’s dignity, honor and reputation; the right to privacy; And so on. This abusive use of section 52 of the Quebec Charter (the notwithstanding clause) is a serious gesture, especially since Bill 21 was adopted by a simple majority, whereas the Charter had been unanimity.
So, congratulations to Québec solidaire! Should voters for whom the protection of fundamental rights is something crucial go to this political party? Unfortunately, things are not that simple. Because in the case of Bill 96 (on the French language), Québec solidaire had no objection to the government using the same mass destruction clause. At least his reservations, if any, were not significant enough to prevent QS from voting in favor of this bill. Could it be that in the eyes of those in solidarity, the defense of French justifies derogating from a vast section of the fundamental rights of Quebecers?
After months of hesitation, the Liberal Party finally took a firm stand against Bill 96 and, in particular, against the use of the notwithstanding clause. However, the period of dithering was so long that some have come to doubt the sincerity of this last-minute positioning.
In terms of fundamental rights, the principles and case law are clear. Charters are there to protect the rights of individuals and minorities against discriminatory measures. The argument that an initiative is supported by the majority, used repeatedly by the Legault government, has no value: it is precisely to prevent the majority from committing abuses that charters exist.
The view that parliamentarians, rather than the courts, should have the final say in this matter is no more valid. In fact, they have the last word, but within certain tags. The Canadian and Quebec charters allow Parliament and the provincial assemblies to overrule them, but the spirit of these overriding clauses is that their use be limited and reserved for exceptional situations.
Anyone who believes in these principles should have opposed with all their might and right from the start the notwithstanding clauses included in Bills 21 and 96. The Quebec Liberal Party did not do that. Québec solidaire has not done so either. That being the case, to which political party should the electorate concerned about the protection of fundamental rights in Quebec turn? This should be one of the main issues in the fall election campaign.