The Secularism Act before the Supreme Court: Quebec warns Trudeau’s successor

Involvement of the federal government in the contestation of the Law on secularism before the Supreme Court would constitute an “attack on the autonomy” of Quebec, affirms the Legault government. The message is thus sent, both to the candidates for the leadership of the PLC and to the Conservative leader in Ottawa.

Ministers Simon Jolin-Barette and Jean-François Roberge reacted promptly on Thursday to the decision of the highest court in the country to hear the challenge to Bill 21.

Entering into force in 2019, it prohibits the wearing of religious symbols by state employees in positions of authority (judges, prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and teachers) in the exercise of their functions.

The start date of the hearings is not known at this time.

“One thing is certain, the Quebec government will fight to the end to defend the Law on State Secularism», Say the two ministers in a written statement.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has always maintained his intention to involve the federal government in the event of a challenge before the Supreme Court.

But with the announcement of his departure next March, Ottawa’s reaction becomes more uncertain. The candidates for the leadership of the PLC, Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland in the lead, will have to position themselves in the file.

Just like Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who says he is against Bill 21 but assures, at the same time, that he wants to place the autonomy of the provinces at the heart of his government action.

“An intervention by the federal government in the Supreme Court would not only be a lack of respect, but could not be considered other than an attack on the autonomy of the federated states,” write the Quebec ministers in their written reaction.

Settle the debate

The Supreme Court did not justify the reasons which led it to hear the challenge to Bill 21, while the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal have already largely recognized the legitimacy of the provisions adopted by the Legault government.

Only an exemption was granted to English-speaking school boards, at first instance, by virtue of their linguistic rights, then overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Thus, several questions will be before the eight remaining judges, after the withdrawal of judge Mahmud Jamal due to his involvement in the beginnings of the protest.

According to the lawyer for the Quebec Secular Movement, Mr.^e Guillaume Rousseau, the court will have to determine whether Quebec could legitimately use the derogation clause to protect itself from legal proceedings, but also rule on the merits of the law as well as on the possibility for English-speaking school boards to avoid it.

M^e Rousseau does not hide his disappointment at seeing the highest court look into the case, but emphasizes that a judgment in favor of Quebec would have “even more resonance throughout Canada than that of the Court of Appeal.”

“It will really be a very strong message sent to the entire federation,” said the man who pleaded the case before the two lower courts.

Discrimination

In contrast, the Autonomous Education Federation welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday.

The union federation became involved in the cause, in particular, because of “employment discrimination” created by the law.

In turn, PQ leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon challenged Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre to respect provincial autonomy, asking him to commit to putting an end to federal participation in contesting the law. 21.

“I reiterate that Quebecers are (the) sole masters and responsible for their laws and that their democratic choices should not be overturned by a Canada which, clearly, feels above Quebecers in terms of morality or understanding of the legal issues,” declared the leader of the Parti Québécois, at the end of his pre-sessional caucus in Terrebonne.

– With the collaboration of Marc-André Gagnon, Parliamentary Office