Members of François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec government expressed strong reactions on Thursday to Ottawa’s involvement in the Supreme Court of Canada’s case regarding Quebec’s secularism law, known as Bill 21.
In his submission to the Supreme Court of Canada, Attorney General Sean Fraser did not criticize the specific provisions of Bill 21, which forbid public sector employees in authoritative roles, such as teachers and judges, from wearing religious symbols while on duty. Instead, he raised concerns about the use of the notwithstanding clause.
The notwithstanding clause allows provinces to protect their laws from constitutional challenges, as Quebec did when enacting its secularism law in 2019. The federal government, in its submission, urged the court to establish boundaries on how the notwithstanding clause can be utilized, emphasizing that frequent use of the clause could indirectly alter the Constitution, potentially infringing on Canadians’ rights.
Quebec’s Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette stood firm in defending Quebec’s principles, stating, “We will not apologize for upholding Quebec values.” He accused the federal government of not only targeting Quebec but also undermining the parliamentary sovereignty of all Canadian legislative bodies.
Jolin-Barrette highlighted the significance of the notwithstanding clause, Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in preserving the autonomy of provincial legislatures. He criticized the federal government’s attempt to diminish provincial powers through its arguments as unacceptable.
Referring to Ottawa’s “hypocrisy,” Quebec’s Secularism Minister Jean-François Roberge echoed Jolin-Barrette’s sentiments, pointing out the inconsistency in the federal government’s stance on Quebec’s secularism law and its protective measures.
Roberge labeled Ottawa’s position as hypocritical and a direct assault on Bill 21, emphasizing the need for Quebec lawmakers, representing the province’s citizens, to legislate on matters concerning social cohesion.
He asserted Quebec’s rejection of multiculturalism in favor of its unique model, pledging to defend it proudly. Meanwhile, Fraser clarified that his call for limitations on the notwithstanding clause was not solely related to Quebec’s secularism law, anticipating that the Supreme Court’s ruling would influence the future application of the clause by federal and provincial authorities.