The Quebec Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, has made comments in recent days that should have raised controversy. The media and politicians have spoken a lot about the declarations of the Premier, François Legault, about the “Louisianization” of Quebec, but the words spoken by Mr. Jolin-Barrette carry much more consequence.
Posted at 10:00 a.m.
I quote The Journal of Quebec : “For the Minister of Justice, the laws of Quebec should be evaluated according to the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, rather than that imposed by Ottawa when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982. “This Charter [canadienne] of rights and freedoms, it was not adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec. So there is a lack of legitimacy”, he underlines. »
Did I understand correctly that the Minister of Justice is suggesting that from now on, Quebec laws ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
The only way to achieve this result would be for every law passed by the National Assembly to include the use of a wide-ranging notwithstanding provision, such as that enshrined in Bills 21 and 96. If that is the intention of the QAC is serious.
It is true that the Canadian Charter is part of the constitutional package imposed on Quebec in 1982, without the approval of the National Assembly. However, the Charter itself has always enjoyed strong support among the people of Quebec. A few years ago, a survey conducted by CROP measured this support at no less than 88%.
Evading the effects of the Canadian Charter in favor of the Quebec Charter makes a big difference in terms of protecting the fundamental rights of Quebecers. The Canadian Charter can only be changed by a constitutional amendment. In other words, changing the text is very difficult.
The Quebec Charter is an ordinary law; a simple majority in the National Assembly is enough to change the text. This weakness of the Quebec law led PQ member Jacques-Yvan Morin, a specialist in constitutional law, to express his disappointment when it was adopted in 1975: “Let’s just call it by its name; it is a simple law among others. It is not a charter. There is nothing that distinguishes this law from the other laws that we are going to adopt subsequently or from the laws already passed by this Assembly. »
Let us follow Mr. Jolin-Barrette’s reasoning to the end. He therefore wishes that the laws of Quebec be adopted by setting aside the Canadian Charter in favor of the Quebec Charter. But that’s not all. The Quebec Charter itself should be set aside — as was done in the case of Bills 21 and 96 — according to the will of a simple majority in the National Assembly. I always quote The Journal of Quebec “When the ‘Quebec living-together model’ or the French language is in danger, ‘it is not up to the courts to define the moral contract, the living-together contract, it is up to the elected members of the Assembly national to do so”. »
In other words, each time it is a question of “living together in Quebec” or language, human rights will be set aside to leave all the room to the will of the government of the moment. This goes against the very principle of these charters, nothing less.
Indeed, the Legault government is proposing here to turn its back on more than 40 years of case law and political decisions, in Quebec and Ottawa, based on the principle that in matters of fundamental rights, the courts have the last word, except exceptional circumstances. Mr. Jolin-Barrette now announces that these “exceptional circumstances” will occur regularly, that is to say each time the CAQ government finds fundamental rights in its way.
Given the radical nature of this shift, the Prime Minister must absolutely clarify his government’s intentions. When he made these remarks, was Mr. Jolin-Barrette speaking on behalf of the Council of Ministers? If so, how does the CAQ plan to consult the population on this subject? The Minister of Justice wants “a collective conversation” on this subject, what does that mean? Finally, who will make the ultimate decision, and how?
Mr. Jolin-Barrette’s statement suggests that the Legault government will now make recourse to the notwithstanding provision a matter of routine. If this is the case, Quebecers will soon see their fundamental rights less well protected than other Canadians. The protection offered by charters, both Quebec and Canadian, will be full of holes. Is this really what Quebecers want?