Justin Trudeau came to try to temper the debate that has just been revived between him and François Legault, regarding the preemptive use of the notwithstanding provision. The Prime Minister of Canada recalled that this type of recourse by the provinces to the provision of the Constitution has worried him from the start. And that he had warned months ago that he would embark on this litigation when it ends up before the Supreme Court. But the federal government has not yet determined how it will go about it and whether it will make a referral to the highest court in the land, we are assured behind the scenes.
“As a government, we will always be there to defend the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians. That’s what I’ve always said, that’s what we will continue to do, ”reiterated Justin Trudeau at a press briefing in Toronto on Monday. “As I said, we are going to intervene at the Supreme Court in the case [du projet de loi] 21 [sur la laïcité de l’État québécois] “, he repeated.
He also defended himself from attacking a particular province in this way — in this case, Quebec, in this case. “I have often said that I deplore when the provinces — whatever the province […] — use the notwithstanding clause in a preventive way to suspend fundamental freedoms without being able to go to court, that this is not a good thing to do. But obviously, this is a position that I take with all the provinces, “said Mr. Trudeau. “It’s not a question of the federal against the provinces. It’s a question of making sure that we are there to defend the fundamental freedoms of everyone. »
The debate was reignited after Prime Minister Trudeau said in an interview with The Press last week, that a “referral to the Supreme Court of Canada can be made” and that its Minister of Justice, David Lametti, “is in the process of reflecting precisely on the avenues available” in this file.
Minister Lametti had already acknowledged, in an interview with The duty last June, that this was one of the possibilities under consideration.
A reference, brought by the federal government to clarify the possible use of the notwithstanding clause in a preventive manner, is still one of the options. But no decision has been made, we insist on the federal government.
Quebec is indignant
Notwithstanding, the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, seized on the remarks of his federal counterpart on Saturday to denounce them. “This will shown by Justin Trudeau is a frontal attack on our nation’s ability to protect our collective rights,” he mocked on Twitter.
“It is up to the National Assembly to decide the laws that govern us as a nation. Quebec will never accept such a weakening of its rights. Never ! “, chanted Mr. Legault.
His office still held the same speech on Monday, following Justin Trudeau’s press briefing.
The government of Quebec has used the derogation provision (also called the “notwithstanding clause”) preemptively for its bills 21 (on secularism) and 96 (on the French language). Ontario Premier Doug Ford had planned to do the same this fall, to force education workers back to work, before backing down. Ontario used it preventively on another occasion, as did Saskatchewan.
Justin Trudeau and several constitutional scholars oppose this pre-emptive remedy. Rather, they believe that the notwithstanding provision was intended to allow provincial governments to opt out of certain rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only after a court had ruled on their laws.
Further details will follow.