Justice Minister David Lametti is defending the federal government’s power to challenge provincial laws that they say violate Canadian rights, after Quebec said Ottawa’s response to Bills 21 and 96 was “disrespectful.”
“We are simply testing the limits of a piece of legislation, whether it violates the charter or violates federal jurisdiction. We have been doing this since the beginning of the Confederacy. We will continue to do so. This is a legitimate tool. It’s not offensive to anyone. This is part of the process, “the Quebec MP told CTV’s Question Period.
The federal government says it is up to the people of Quebec to take the lead in all appeals against the two bills, but said it intends to intervene on Bill 21 if it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Bill 21 came into force in June 2019 and prohibits some government officials, including teachers and police officers, from wearing religious symbols while at work. Bill 96 was passed on May 24 and confirms that Quebec’s only official and common language is French. The main goal is to ensure that French is used exclusively in the workplace and in the municipalities.
Critics of the bills say none of them represent inclusive Quebec and say they violate certain provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Lametti’s comments come days after Quebec Prime Minister Francois Lego called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to “please have a little respect for the Quebec majority”, which he said supports controversial secularism and language laws.
His justice minister, Simon Jolin-Barrett, added that no bill was Ottawa’s business, but rather a “Quebec issue”.
Lametti called the reaction “absurd.”
“There are challenges to the federal jurisdiction by the provinces all the time, there are challenges to the provincial jurisdiction by the federal government all the time,” he said, noting that Legault sued Ottawa over the carbon tax scheme.
REQUIRED REVIEW OF NECESSARY CLAUSE
In introducing both Bill 21 and Bill 96, the Quebec government preemptively invoked the independence clause, which allows provincial legislatures to temporarily repeal sections of the charter while protecting them from many judicial challenges.
Lametti said he did not believe the clause should be used that way.
“The independence clause had to be used as the last word in the dialogue between the legislatures and the courts, giving the last word to the legislature. It is not meant to be the first word. “When it comes to the first word, it precedes not only the political debate, but also the judicial review of the actual provision and really destroys the structure of the charter,” he said.
The minister added that it was generally time for the Supreme Court to consider it.
“So far, there is a decision of the Supreme Court, which says it can be used in this way. “I would say it is time to reconsider this decision of the Supreme Court, we ask the Supreme Court to reconsider it,” he said.
Add Comment