Quebec is using the Constitution to take away the rights of minorities. What if that becomes the norm?

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/12/2021 (1145 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Fatemeh Anvari has started a national conversation.

The school teacher in Chelsea, Que., removed from her classroom this month because of her hijab, has put a face to Bill 21, the Quebec law that prevents those wearing religious symbols from holding certain public-sector jobs.

The law is popular in Quebec, where Premier François Legault defended it again Monday as reasonable and important to ensure secularism and the appearance of neutrality.

“People can teach if they take off their religious symbol while they teach, and when they are in the streets, at home, they can wear a religious symbol,” Legault told reporters.

The shocked parents of students at Chelsea Elementary School want to use their outrage to cast a light on Bill 21’s injustice.

But a Quebec Liberal MP hopes Anvari’s case prompts broader thinking. Anthony Housefather wants a national discussion on the use of the notwithstanding clause, and how to prevent the majority from using its position to curb the rights of minorities.

Anvari lost her ability to teach because Legault pre-emptively used the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ notwithstanding clause, section 33, giving the Quebec government the ability to trample on fundamental rights and shield its action from the courts. (It is doing so again with language Bill 96.)

“I’m not naïve about it,” the Mount Royal MP told me. Amending the Constitution to add parameters around the clause or eliminate it completely requires the approval of at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the Canadian population. The only other direct option would be Ottawa’s power of disallowance, last used to invalidate provincial law in 1943.

But Housefather thinks a conference with legal scholars or a committee of the House of Commons could explore:

1) whether the notwithstanding clause should be enacted through a simple majority vote;

2) whether the override clause should be able to override fundamental freedoms, such as conscience, religion, expression, and association, found in section 2 of the Charter;

3) whether the notwithstanding clause should be used pre-emptively.

He argues pre-emptive use wasn’t what the framers had in mind, back in 1981, when the override clause was inserted into the Charter to break an impasse between some premiers and Ottawa.

According to the Library of Parliament, Allan Blakeney, the then premier of Saskatchewan, referred to the measure as one that would allow Parliament and the legislatures to “override a court decision.” Roy McMurtry, the attorney general of Ontario, wrote that the notwithstanding clause would be used “in the unlikely event of a decision of the courts that is clearly contrary to the public interest.”

Housefather hopes the conversation can move beyond one focused on Quebec.

“Bill 21 is a Quebec issue, but the notwithstanding clause and the ability of any legislature to override fundamental rights is not a Quebec issue. It’s a national issue.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford used the notwithstanding clause this June to reintroduce a third-party election spending bill that had been struck down by the court. He previously threatened to use the clause if the court prevented him from interfering in the municipal election by changing the size of Toronto’s city council. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has mused about invoking section 33, and, last year, New Brunswick MLAs voted to remove the notwithstanding clause from a bill imposing mandatory vaccination for children in schools and daycares.

At the heart of the matter is getting the Supreme Court to review a 1988 decision that very broadly interpreted the clause. Back then, the court was ruling on a case from the early 80s. “The Charter was sort of wet behind the ears,” said Robert Leckey, the dean of law at McGill University, “and so the idea that the court got it right in 1988 in a way that would last for ages, doesn’t make sense to me.”

The top court has changed its mind on collective bargaining and more recently medically-assisted dying. Ottawa could step in with a reference to the Supreme Court, though Leckey believes a more strategic approach would be intervening at the Quebec Court of Appeal.

His big concern is that the notwithstanding clause becomes normalized, that Canadians stop being shocked by its use, and that, consequently, there are few political costs to invoking it. That would be truly dangerous, he said.

So if a national conversation can help discuss legitimate and illegitimate uses, Leckey’s for it.

“A lot of people have a sense that you shouldn’t use (the override clause) to authorize torture, but there is nothing on the face of section 33 or the Supreme Court’s judgment that would tell us that you shouldn’t use the notwithstanding clause to legalize torture,” he said.

“So there probably are some implicit norms around it that we haven’t done a very good job yet of fleshing out.”

Althia Raj is an Ottawa-based national politics columnist for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @althiaraj