Trying to follow the position of Québec solidaire (QS) on secularism over the years is a fairly confusing exercise. The reversals are even more numerous than those of the Legault government on the third link.
In 2013, in reaction to the Marois government’s Charter of Quebec Values, Françoise David presented a bill which took up the recommendation of the Bouchard-Taylor report on the wearing of religious symbols, namely their ban for agents exercising a “power of coercion”, which did not include teachers, to whom Law 21 extended it.
It quickly became apparent that the position of the parliamentary wing of QS was not unanimous within the party, so the 2018 electoral platform remained silent on the subject. The following year, activists decided that this position was incompatible with the party’s program, which stipulated that the wearing of religious symbols should be permitted, provided that it did not serve as an instrument of proselytism and did not constitute a rupture of the duty of reserve to which State agents are bound.
In 2019, QS opposed the adoption of Bill 21, in particular due to the inclusion of the notwithstanding provision, which allowed it to be removed from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as from the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms.
In July 2022, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois declared that a united government would “allow the wearing of religious symbols so that everyone can work in Quebec, regardless of their beliefs”, but the platform once again dodged the question. It was not necessary to deliberately upset the French-speaking majority, who were largely in favor of the law.
Five years after its adoption, the time has come to renew the use of the notwithstanding provision, and QS is still trying to balance things out. He will support the bill to this effect presented on February 8 by the Minister responsible for Secularism, Jean-François Roberge, only on the condition that the derogation provision applies only to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that legal challenges remain possible under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
“If what the CAQ wants to do is to prevent the federal government from interfering in a Quebec decision, that’s one thing. But if what she wants to do is to prevent Quebecers from defending their rights under the Quebec Charter, that is something else, and we will not star in that film,” declared Mr. Nadeau-Dubois.
It is true that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined in the Constitution without the agreement of Quebec in 1982, which may pose a problem of legitimacy, while its Quebec counterpart was adopted unanimously by the National Assembly and should therefore reflect “Quebec values”.
However, that is not the question. It is not a question of preventing Ottawa from dictating its will to Quebec, but rather of preventing judges simply appointed, regardless of who, from being able to impose theirs on a government that the population elected democratically. This is precisely why a derogation provision was included in both charters.
For 40 years, Ottawa and the apologists of the Charter of Rights in English Canada have worked to demonize the notwithstanding provision, the inclusion of which had been demanded by the English-speaking provinces, otherwise they would not have allowed Pierre Elliott Trudeau to repatriate the Constitution.
QS has every right to oppose the State Secularism Law or to think that it goes too far. Instead of playing the game and trying to give itself a nationalist veneer by draping itself in the Quebec Charter, it should embrace its convictions and clearly say that a united government would modify the law to authorize the wearing of religious symbols by teachers, or even to all.
Of course, such a franchise would not be without risk. A frontal attack against Law 21 would be poorly received in these regions where QS dreams of making a breakthrough. Therefore, it would be better to let the courts do the work. Regardless of the way, the wish of solidarity activists would be to return to free choice.
At the same time, we should never take a statement from Denis Coderre as definitive. Many liberal activists must have almost fainted when they heard him say that he was now in favor of Bill 21, including maintaining the notwithstanding provision.
The interim leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ), Marc Tanguay, may have exaggerated by saying that his reappointment constitutes “a violation of all our fundamental rights”, but he was only expressing what we think within of his party.
We will see if Mr. Coderre’s new position will still hold next week, but his conversion to law 21 would be good news for QS. Failing to break through in the region, he could at least hope to continue to eat away at the PLQ’s non-French-speaking clientele.