«25 mythes à déboulonner en politique québécoise»: de la nécessaire épreuve des faits

https://www.ledevoir.com/lire/525104/livres-de-la-necessaire-epreuve-des-faits

Mais c’est encore et toujours un constat juste, croit Michel C. Auger. « À écouter le débat public ces temps-ci, on pourrait penser que la loi 101 n’a jamais été adoptée il y a 40 ans et qu’elle ne fut pas un remarquable succès, écrit-il dans la préface de l’ouvrage. On pourrait aussi croire que l’immigration est la première menace à la survie d’une société francophone en Amérique. Ou que le Québec est le prisonnier d’une Constitution néocoloniale et immuable qu’il ne peut modifier. »

Election 2019: 'We are very much alive,' Blanchet says of Bloc victories

“Our work is not to make Canadian federalism work,” the Bloc Québécois leader said. “Our mandate from voters is also not to impede it."  
https://montrealgazette.com/news/national/election-2019/election-2019-analysis-bloc-quebecois-victory-blocks-liberals-route-to-majority?fbclid=IwAR22_1UCBeVuvIqGpQxBDvBkx_BMzFUfpvneeiJpJqaZ7sV7RE5_KLolTBU

QUEBEC — Dismissed as a party on life support, the Bloc Québécois roared back to life Monday, leaving a trail of defeated New Democratic Party candidates in its wake and disappointed Conservatives who again failed to make gains in the province.

And the Liberal vote in Quebec proved more durable than many anticipated.

As election results poured in from all over Quebec, it was clear the Bloc would be avenging its losses to the New Democrats in 2011 and the Liberals in 2015.

Only a criminal trial will reveal whether SNC-Lavalin’s corruption infected the government, too

Opinion: It would also expose who in government might have been involved

 https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/only-a-criminal-trial-will-reveal-whether-snc-lavalins-corruption-infected-the-government-too

Trials are designed to detail wrongdoing by government and corporate officials alike and to mete out justice in a transparent forum that the public can understand. Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) are designed to cover up details of wrongdoing and replace jail time for corrupt government and corporate officials with fines for corporations.

Montreal engineering giant SNC-Lavalin, facing charges of corruption and fraud under Canadian law related to its Libyan operations, understandably wants to avoid trials now and in future. The company claims that past misdeeds can be entirely laid at the feet of a few so-called “bad apples” who have since been removed. If SNC-Lavalin were nevertheless found guilty through an exhaustive examination of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, that claim could be eviscerated — the “bad apples” in question have already said they were carrying out widely employed company practices. If so, the company not only stands to lose federal government contracts over the next 10 years, its officers stand to be incarcerated.

 

 

(Federal) Election shows us why Montreal and the rest of Quebec are so different

The Bloc's success is due to a move to right-of-centre policies in the regions, while urban centres remain progressive.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/election-shows-us-why-montreal-and-the-rest-of-quebec-are-so-different?fbclid=IwAR2DI-Ehkvac7JaixNvls4pHf0rtFqUjREnSZThk1leh3eHaRvnYf-RTkJc

The federal election has once again shone a spotlight on the difference between overwhelmingly Liberal Montreal and the rural parts of the province, where the Bloc Québécois reigned supreme.

The Bloc’s success is due to a move to right-of-centre policies in the regions, while urban centres remain progressive, noted Daniel Béland, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.

He said today’s Bloc Québécois party is far different than the one that had success with Gilles Duceppe as leader, with a strong anti-poverty agenda.

Quebecers say separatism is passé, but worry about future of French: poll

The concern was more pronounced among older respondents, with Quebecers 55 and older saying language is an important part of their identity.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebecers-say-separatism-is-passe-but-worry-about-future-of-french-poll

A Canada-wide survey suggests that Quebecers are equally indifferent to the ideas of separatism and federalism, but remain worried about the future of their language.

The survey of 5,700 Canadians, conducted by six research firms and published in La Presse on Friday, suggests that 54 per cent of respondents from Quebec said they were neither federalist nor sovereignist, while 23 per cent described themselves as federalists — the same proportion as those who said they were sovereignists.

The poll also found that 55 per cent of Quebec respondents believed strongly or somewhat that the idea of sovereignty was passé. Only 18 per cent of Quebec francophones aged 18-24 described themselves as sovereignist, while three-quarters of that demographic felt they were neither sovereignist nor federalist.

Quebec no longer participant in national political conversation

"The tragedy is that federal politicians are so afraid of Quebecers like Blanchet and his effective political boss, Premier Legault, that they never make the argument for federalism and for Canada."

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/10/18/quebec-no-longer-participant-in-national-political-conversation/?fbclid=IwAR3N83Nf4UPozSZyR1QP3LD-CWkw8EqbrIJ9HpKd3aWloIZF8ueBGW_SBl0

Quebec may still be part of Confederation but it’s no longer really a participant in the country’s political conversation. That much is clear from the zombie-like revival of the Bloc Québécois in the current election campaign.

From holding caucus meetings in a large phone booth not long ago, the party is now nipping at the heels of the Liberals in public opinion polls and could even end up with more seats in Quebec than the Liberals in Monday’s election.

Credit is given to the strong performance on the hustings by Yves-François Blanchet, a previously relatively obscure cabinet minister in the government of Parti Québécois premier Pauline Marois, who long had a reputation within the party as “a goon” for his aggressive demeanour.

Supporters of public faith in Canada are young, educated, Liberal and 'quite dug in': pollster

This puts the lie to the impression that support for public religiosity in areas like health care, social services and education is driven by conservative ‘holy rollers’

https://nationalpost.com/news/religion/supporters-of-public-faith-in-canada-are-young-educated-liberal-and-quite-dug-in-pollster?fbclid=IwAR2DTuNgUK-Br6CGDyTu0at9Gd1G5QS5nr1N8j5C1fkc49hAoRhBIPB6YIw

Proponents of religious faith in public life in Canada tend to be younger, more highly educated, and more likely to have voted Liberal, according to a new survey.

The counter-intuitive discovery puts the lie to the common impression that support for public religiosity in areas like health care, social services and education is driven by evangelical church goers and deeply observant, older, conservative “holy rollers,” said Angus Reid, chairman of Angus Reid Institute.

“What we find is exactly the opposite,” Reid said.

Martin Patriquin: Quebec finds separatist threat not needed for clout

If the result is what polls suggest, Quebec issues will loom large in the next federal government, just as they have in this election.

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/martin-patriquin-quebec-finds-separatist-threat-not-needed-for-clout?fbclid=IwAR2q0V8igvurV04oyWHuHQoBWItqmHLEvY3iiyb63gLGNmO8dUlmaAPkxHY


One of the longstanding existential worries of Quebec sovereignist movement is the province’s diminished political clout should the movement become passé. The thinking: remove the separatist threat and Quebec becomes a province like any other. Quebec must always be a threat to Canada in order to remain relevant in Canada, in other words.

The 43rd federal election campaign, which comes to a welcome end next week, has laid waste to this blinkered logic. A little more than one year after Quebecers themselves pushed the Parti Québécois (and therefore sovereignty) a little further into oblivion, Quebec has retained its outsized importance on the federal landscape.

First, consider that three of the four debates held over the last several weeks took place in Quebec. (Justin Trudeau couldn’t be bothered to show up to the Maclean’s/CityTV debate in Toronto last month.) To this apparently symbolic happenstance you can add this: Many of the most important electoral issues hashed out during those six hours of television directly involved Quebec.

Macpherson: How the CAQ anti-hijab legislation would affect all Quebecers

The bill would have the effect of encouraging discrimination against Muslims, and weaken protection for the freedoms and rights of all.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/macpherson-how-the-caq-anti-hijab-legislation-would-affect-all-quebecers

A political trial balloon tells us what a government is thinking of doing. Its purpose is to test reaction to an idea before committing to it.

Okay, then, as a service to the Legault government, here’s one reaction to the balloon floated this week about its ... anti-hijab bill.

The ...  “secularism” bill would forbid government employees in “positions of authority” from wearing any religious symbols while on duty. In theory, it would apply to all religions and to judges, prosecutors, police and prison guards ...

Chris Selley: The federal leaders are all pretty appalling on Bill 21

With their cynicism, the party leaders have diminished any credibility Canada might have internationally in promoting religious freedoms or other minority rights

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/chris-selley-the-federal-leaders-are-all-pretty-appalling-on-bill-21?fbclid=IwAR3TJkf_NEsy1WxKe31VNfcf-uNM9JWl8EBqBRwYpUt3tZcbaBH-RakJQxQ
QUEBEC CITY — From a civil libertarian standpoint, the federal party leaders’ positions on Bill 21, Quebec’s new restrictions on certain civil servants’ attire, are all pretty appalling. The Liberals and Justin Trudeau could lay dubious claim to the most stringent opposition — they have “left the door open” to intervening in court challenges — but only if they did so quietly. Instead they boast of it just like it’s something for the self-styled “party of the Charter” to be proud of. Trudeau criticizing turban-wearing NDP leader Jagmeet Singh for his position during the English-language leaders’ debate was one of the more jaw-dropping moments in a campaign that has wanted for many things, but never chutzpah.

But then, Singh’s position — “door closed” until it reaches the Supreme Court, at which an NDP government would “look at” intervention” — makes him impossible to defend, especially since he derides the idea of earlier intervention as “political interference.” One wonders how would he describe a bunch of politicians telling teachers and police officers what to wear.

William Johnson: The myth of disestablished English - The Métropolitain

The myth of disestablished English - The Métropolitain

Even as English is again under attack at the National Assembly during the hearings on Bill 14, it is perhaps true that most Quebecers have been misled into believing that English is not also an official language of Quebec. But that’s entirely unfounded in fact or in law. English has been an official language of Quebec ever since 1763. Every law passed since then has been passed in English. Every law to be passed by the current Parti Québécois government will be passed in English as well as French, and the English text will be official, just as will be the French. 

English is part of Quebec’s very identity. That part is largely what makes the difference between Quebec and other former colonies of France, such as Guadeloupe, Martinique, Louisiana, Haiti, Vietnam or Algeria. 

So how has the myth been propagated that French is the “sole official language?”  It began with the trickery of Robert Bourassa’s Bill 22 of 1974, the so-called “Official Language Act, which proclaimed – in English as well as French: “French is the official language of the province of Québec.” ...

La commission scolaire English-Montréal prise en défaut

(Québec) La commission scolaire English-Montréal (CSEM) a enfreint les règles dans l’attribution de contrats valant plusieurs millions de dollars, concluent des vérificateurs du Conseil du trésor.
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/education/201910/15/01-5245516-la-commission-scolaire-english-montreal-prise-en-defaut.php?fbclid=IwAR37MM7vVK41bE3T0RXbCr3CCO3ZpikcBcjMnRdozVWcsq-tnsaV69JANws

Dans leur rapport, que La Presse a obtenu, ils relèvent en outre que des contrats ont été accordés sans passer par le processus d’appel d’offres public prévu à la loi.

Le président du Conseil du trésor, Christian Dubé, avait mandaté ses vérificateurs en janvier pour faire enquête sur la CSEM. Sa décision faisait suite à un reportage de La Presse sur une série d’allégations portées à la connaissance du gouvernement au sujet de la gestion des contrats dans la plus grande commission scolaire anglophone du Québec.

Le rapport du Trésor alimentera la réflexion du gouvernement Legault, qui envisage de mettre la CSEM sous tutelle. Une décision devrait intervenir le mois prochain. La tutelle fait partie des recommandations d’un rapport d’enquête accablant du ministère de l’Éducation sur la CSEM qui a été remis au gouvernement en septembre.

QESBA to lead judicial charge against school boards elimination

http://www.thesuburban.com/news/qesba-to-lead-judicial-charge-against-school-boards-elimination/article_6bb5164f-63f0-526a-ae81-50b3ee06876a.html?fbclid=IwAR1mDs_dBYzwXosnrL7d2VRR-zlh1vEGFf0RO2Ln6PsdhQKQN9ZY2rpQYYI

Following last week’s announcement about the CAQ administration’s plan to follow through with its plans to abolish Québec’s school boards, Québec English School Board Association (QESBA) director Russell Copeman told The Suburban that he expects the association to lead the judicial fight against the bill.

“Not only is it an offense against local democracy, but the CAQ’s new bill (Bill #40) clearly doesn’t meet the Supreme Court’s criteria under section 23 of the Canadian Charter,” said Copeman. “If it goes to court, I have no doubt the QESBA will lead the charge.”

While Québec Education Minister Jean-François Roberge described Bill 40 as a radical plan to reform public education in Québec, the new law is expected to abolish local school boards in order to replace them with so-called ‘service centers’ made up of 16 people – essentially volunteers as they will not be paid for their service. Although board members will be paid $100 to participate in their monthly meetings, the money is little more than pocket change when compared to the responsibility that defines a responsible commissioner’s work. While the law will allow the province’s 9 English language public school boards to elect their commissioners (as usual) in order to accommodate minority language community rights to operate and manage their own schools, the ‘service centers’ will still be responsible to the minister and his (her) bureaucracy who will effectively have the last word about public education in Québec. According to Copeman, it’s the end of local school board democracy because he doubts that the new service centers will have the kind of power and responsibility to be able to provide both the oversight and the scrutiny that’s required to manage and operate an efficient school board.

La loi sur la laïcité est-elle raciste ?

La loi sur la laïcité est-elle raciste ? Cette question met les Québécois en colère, et surtout ceux qui fréquentent les réseaux sociaux.

https://www.lapresse.ca/debats/opinions/201910/10/01-5244919-laicite-pour-zainab.php?fbclid=IwAR0vvMYuHeLxS25ue720dfp2lgWSpsBUv9rFsozD2I_XCt6ezfiU4bJH9Sw

Mon compte Twitter déborde de commentaires depuis que j’ai soulevé le fait qu’aucun des chefs lors du premier débat télévisé n’avait osé affirmer ce qui me semblait être une évidence : cette loi ne discrimine pas seulement sur une base religieuse, elle discrimine aussi sur une base ethnique. L’image même de Jagmeet Singh, chef du NPD, incarne cette double discrimination : corrigez-moi si je me trompe, mais je n’ai pas encore vu de masses de sikhs à la peau blanche !

La réalité est que la majorité des personnes touchées par la loi proviennent de minorités visibles. Je comprends que ce n’est pas l’intention de la loi d’être raciste, mais son effet est proportionnellement plus grand au sein de ces groupes. Il s’agit du concept de « racisme systémique » qui touche les institutions telles que le système judiciaire, où l’on retrouve un nombre disproportionné de minorités visibles, mais aussi d’autochtones. Les lois sont les mêmes pour tout le monde, mais dans leur application, elles ont un impact plus grand sur certains groupes.

Au Canada anglais et en particulier à Toronto, on parle beaucoup de racisme systémique. On fait des enquêtes. Des recommandations. On fait des manifs. On parle moins de religion, et quand on le fait, c’est généralement en lien avec le discours sur le racisme, pour les raisons que j’ai mentionnées plus haut. La laïcité tout court, ce n’est pas une préoccupation.

Opinion: Quebec's Bill 21 and the lessons of France

Anti-veiling laws that govern Muslim women’s bodies and lives have been passed without much concern for those bodies and lives.

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-quebecs-bill-21-and-the-lessons-of-france?fbclid=IwAR27GY-_cO8-mI7ZEdpVJNHxaeloXos3pcb0OTo7X2DL2PhgEdmNpQE-e_A

In the wake of the National Assembly hearings on Bill 21, one might think that everything that needed to be said has been said. However, despite valiant efforts by a handful of civil society groups — most notably the Coalition Inclusion Québec and the Fédération des femmes du Québec — the voices of those most concerned by the application of Bill 21 have largely been left out of the conversation.

As a researcher who has studied anti-veiling legislation in France as well as in Quebec, and as someone who wears a head cover, I do not find the lack of consultation with those directly affected by the proposed law to be surprising. This same pattern could be seen during the 2003 Stasi Commission in France — where only two headscarf-wearing women were invited to speak out of hundreds of intervenors, and only as an afterthought. And again during the Gerin Commission that preceded the 2010 law restricting face-coverings, where a grand total of zero niqabi women were invited to speak before the commission. In both cases, commissions made up mostly of white men recommended laws that constrained the freedoms of a marginalized minority female population.

The reality is that anti-veiling laws that govern Muslim women’s bodies and lives have been passed without much concern for those bodies and lives. While some claim to be liberating Muslim women from their supposed oppression by their fathers-brothers-husbands and/or Islam itself, such laws are oppressive and do nothing to promote gender equality — much less integration ...

Op-ed: Leaders wrong to accede to Quebec’s symbols-ban demand

https://news.umanitoba.ca/op-ed-leaders-wrong-to-accede-to-quebecs-symbols-ban-demand/?fbclid=IwAR1rlBjXGqo4XpBHxYC2S-W3VUJN05K0TpxJrn7gALAZ8H6lI7jIRPUjpuU

In the early days of the federal election campaign, Québec Premier François Legault called on leaders of Canada’s federal parties to pledge not to take part in any legal challenges against the province’s Act respecting the laicity of the State, also known as Bill 21, the secularism law that bars public servants in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols including a hijab, turban or kippah. Justin Trudeau, the Liberal leader, was the first to promise that he would reserve the right to intervene at a later date. Following Monday night’s English leaders’ debate, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh stated that he might consider intervening if the challenge were heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. For their part, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and People’s Party leader Maxime Bernier acceded to Premier Legault’s request. Their decision to commit in advance not to participate in a legal challenge is wrongheaded. A decision whether or not to intervene should be made only once the federal government has had the opportunity to assess all constitutional arguments raised by the parties to the litigation and decide whether it is in the public interest to participate in the proceedings.

Well-established procedural rules provide that interested attorneys general must receive notice of litigation that raises the constitutional validity of a law to ensure they have the opportunity to address this question. On an appeal to the Supreme Court, a notice of constitutional question must be sent to all attorneys general that are not already parties to the appeal, including the Attorney General of Canada and attorneys general of the provinces and territories.

As noted by several constitutional law experts, the invocation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ notwithstanding clause in Bill 21 would not prevent a court from reviewing that law’s constitutionality. While the court could not declare that the secularism law has no force and effect, rendering it inoperative, nothing would prevent it from declaring that the law nevertheless violates the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and equality and that the limits that it imposes on these rights are not reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Clashing rights: Behind the Quebec hijab debate

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/clashing-rights-behind-the-quebec-hijab-debate?fbclid=IwAR0OAwHMaR-m6dO7JmoJqsH7eXISShQaK8-u9MowdBrkGeWShPfu200SefE
The Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) government has introduced Bill 21, a law that would supposedly entrench religious neutrality in the province. It would do so by prohibiting providers of government services in positions of authority such as judges, police and teachers from wearing religious symbols, including hijabs (headscarves for female Muslims), turbans (for male Sikhs), kippas (skullcaps for male Jews) and visible Christian crosses
.
Bill 21 also prohibits providing or seeking a government service with one’s face covered. This principle is relatively uncontroversial in Quebec, though some worry that it might discriminate against the very few Muslim women who cover their faces.

The principle behind Bill 21 is laicity, or secularism. Quebecois are currently debating the human rights implications of Bill 21, just as they debated earlier versions proposed by the Parti Quebecois government in 2013 and the Liberal government in 2014 ...

Laïcité et discrimination

Est-ce faire preuve de « mépris » envers la nation québécoise que de qualifier la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État de « discriminatoire » ?
https://www.lapresse.ca/elections-federales/201910/09/01-5244800-laicite-et-discrimination.php?fbclid=IwAR1-nzB1JS3JXYhQCfVWu958y3RC671Ef96DkO8UbzTEzH6qwjxjocAbTyU

À entendre les hauts cris suscités par la question de la journaliste Althia Raj lors du débat des chefs diffusé par la CBC, il semblerait que oui. Certains réclament des excuses publiques et dénoncent ce qu’ils perçoivent comme du « militantisme » de la part de la cheffe du bureau parlementaire d’Ottawa pour le HuffPost Canada. Comme s’il fallait désormais s’excuser de mettre les politiciens devant leurs contradictions en posant des questions qui s’appuient sur des faits.

Rappelons d’abord quelques-uns de ces faits… Dans un segment du débat en anglais portant sur la polarisation, les droits de la personne et l’immigration, Althia Raj, qui était l’une des modératrices, a posé une question sur la loi 21 au chef du Nouveau Parti démocratique, Jagmeet Singh.

« Votre campagne est axée sur le courage, mais vous n’avez pas eu le courage de combattre la loi discriminatoire du Québec. [Cette loi] interdit aux personnes qui, comme vous, portent des symboles religieux d’occuper certains emplois dans la province. Si vous étiez premier ministre, resteriez-vous en retrait et laisseriez-vous une autre province pratiquer la discrimination à l’endroit de ses citoyens ? Ne faites-vous pas passer les intérêts de votre parti au Québec avant vos principes et les droits à l’égalité de tous les citoyens – vous et, franchement, tous les autres chefs sur la scène ? »

UN human rights observers warn Quebec about secularism bill

3 rapporteurs signed letter expressing several 'concerns' about religious symbols bill

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-21-united-nations-human-rights-concerns-1.5145344?fbclid=IwAR2_vzdWpnsopcRY1jh0fJ-5YKCfIqNzvRK1HP2vJkYqQa03pm_yjxItp_g

High-ranking human rights monitors with the United Nations are concerned the Quebec government will violate fundamental freedoms if it moves ahead with legislation to limit where religious symbols can be worn.

Three UN legal experts, known as rapporteurs, signed and sent a letter written in French last week to the Canadian mission in Geneva. They asked the diplomats to share the letter with Quebec's Legislature.

The letter says the province's so-called secularism bill, which the Coalition Avenir Québec government is rushing to pass by next month, threatens freedoms protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ...

New court challenge brought against Quebec's secularism law

Muslim women 'can't help but feel like we are being targeted' says plaintiff

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/court-challenge-quebec-s-secularism-law-1.5299183

Quebec's secularism law, which bans some civil servants from wearing religious symbols at work, is facing a new legal challenge.

Lawyers representing a multi-faith group filed a motion Thursday in Quebec Superior Court that argues the law violates constitutional protections of gender equality and religious freedom.

The motion, a copy of which was provided to CBC News, also argues the law exceeds provincial jurisdiction and fails to live up to its own definition of laicité — or secularism ...

Khan: Quebec's Bill 21 isn't about secularism, it's about atheism

The principle of the separation of “church” and state in western democracies is based on the premise that the state will not mandate or advocate an official religion. But that is not what Bill 21 would do.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/khan-quebecs-bill-21-isnt-about-secularism-its-about-atheism?fbclid=IwAR2A3sKBUnKgNsaqDkOwhgbdbB27723J3XR6vIWXL0JWdJeZHw_7juq5Bxg

In the debate surrounding Quebec’s secularism legislation, Bill 21, which is currently being examined by a legislative committee in public hearings, the Quebec government has made much of the fact that the legislation is intended to maintain the secular nature of Quebec’s public institutions, and ensure that the government is not officially promoting a particular faith or religion.

However, the manner in which the CAQ government of Premier François Legault is implementing its interpretation of secularism, and the anti-religious fervour apparent in the debate around the bill, demonstrates that the de facto state religion of Quebec is radical atheism, shrouded in the language of extremist secularism.

The principle of the separation of “church” and state in western democracies is based on the premise that the state will not mandate or advocate an official religion, as can be found in some European countries, many Muslim majority nations, as well as some nations where Buddhism is dominant. The intent of the principle is for the state to be neutral in matters of faith, not elevate the status of one faith over others, and allow citizens to practise their faith without fear of state coercion or persecution, particularly if their faith is different from that of the majority population ...

Untested legal options could give feds ways to intervene on Bill 21

OTTAWA — National party leaders’ reluctance to intervene in a court challenge to Quebec’s controversial Bill 21 may have left the erroneous impression that there’s nothing the federal government can do to try to stop the law that bans teachers, police and certain other public servants from wearing religious symbols at work.

The Quebec government has, after all, invoked the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to prevent its secularism law from being struck down as a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But while use of the notwithstanding clause makes a court challenge more difficult, constitutional experts say it does not necessarily provide a blanket shield against charter challenges, nor does it prevent the federal government from pursuing other legal avenues ...

Andrew Coyne: Quebecers pick their own [Supreme Court justice] and the feds are letting them do it

https://o.canada.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-quebecers-pick-their-own-justice-and-the-feds-are-letting-them-do-it/wcm/0580f0aa-683c-40e3-9eb7-fca829a24912?fbclid=IwAR3c4W8Xw0S4aQsxsScwY2s3FODhBNQSB24BW-PecNiv8ndnFek-H_o9g_U

Announced last week, it was described in most news reports — where it was reported at all — as a “deal.” The government of Quebec would be given, for the first time, a formal say in the appointment of Supreme Court justices from the province, a prerogative hitherto reserved exclusively to the prime minister of Canada.

And in return? What would Quebec give up, or Ottawa gain, from this “deal”? The same as in most such deals between the federal government and the provinces, Quebec in particular: nothing. No concessions to federal authority, either in this field or another. Not so much as a thank you note. Federalism is all about give and take, of course; it’s just that it seems it’s always the feds that give and the provinces that take.

Prime ministers are well advised to consult widely on any Supreme Court appointment, no matter which province the appointee is from, as generally they have. The Trudeau government had previously gone so far as to codify the process in the form of a seven-person advisory board for each appointment — four drawn from the Canadian legal community, three selected by the federal government ...

Macpherson: François Legault's Brexit referendum for Quebec

Rarely has a government shown so little enthusiasm for its own proposal as the Legault government for its bill to change the voting system.

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/macpherson-francois-legaults-brexit-referendum-for-quebec?fbclid=IwAR0vDNjV2bjuNRkZyTflQWGUDfkl-8lQUytJvU0LCeLj2ClADlhat_8neuA

So, apparently, we’re to have a referendum in Quebec — maybe — like the one in Great Britain in 2016 on Brexit. No, not on seceding from Canada; rather, on a proposal that the government calling the referendum hopes will be rejected.

Rarely has a Quebec government shown so little enthusiasm for its own proposal as the Legault government this week when it presented its bill to change the voting system.

Macpherson: Under the CAQ, the exceptional is becoming normal

No previous Quebec government has attacked minority rights as systematically as François Legault's.

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/macpherson-under-the-caq-the-exceptional-is-becoming-normal?fbclid=IwAR01H9zfkQdRItG5FuJ8xTtlv3nyvXABCfW9aNeCQNbHWgxsXtGGMFZ4jrw
When Education Minister Jean-François Roberge exercised a rarely used power to order the closing of an English-language high school at the end of this school year so it could be handed over to a French-language board, he called his action “exceptional.”

That was in late January. Less than four months later, the exceptional is becoming normal.
The sudden closing of Riverdale High School in the West Island became a cause célèbre in the English-speaking community. That hasn’t deterred Roberge, however, from threatening to again dispense with the normal one-year prior consultation provided for in the Education Act in order to transfer three more English schools to a French board, this time in east-end Montreal ...

Loi sur la laïcité : une seconde contestation déposée en Cour supérieure

Trois mois après son adoption, la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (projet de loi 21) fait l’objet d’une nouvelle fronde devant les tribunaux. Un second recours judiciaire a été déposé hier en Cour supérieure pour la faire invalider.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/201909/26/01-5243014-loi-sur-la-laicite-une-seconde-contestation-deposee-en-cour-superieure.php?fbclid=IwAR2kwat1hmD9DXp8tZEPaBgX0bIFuO2KsjDh5B6jZz0c4P2TdYUxBOvfJfE

Trois enseignantes (une catholique et deux musulmanes), épaulées par le comité juridique de la Coalition Inclusion Québec, organisation qui regroupe des citoyens et des groupes communautaires opposés à la loi sur la laïcité, ont mandaté un bataillon d’avocats pour qu’ils élaborent les arguments qu’elles comptent défendre en cour.

La Coalition compte faire valoir son point de vue en s’attardant sur ce qu’elle estime être des « contradictions » dans le texte de la loi, un non-respect du principe de l’égalité des sexes garantie par les chartes, une intrusion dans un champ de compétence fédéral, et même une rupture avec l’esprit de l’Acte de Québec de 1774, qui éliminait des dispositions discriminatoires envers les Canadiens français catholiques.

Quebec hurtling toward religious symbols ban, which critics say would not only be discriminatory, but a nightmare to enforce

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-hurtling-towards-religious-symbols-ban-which-critics-say/?fbclid=IwAR2f9RcsNVvoy-3eOVvOe4qeEUVP8qqMjEUgdfFFaujxSBhgqrACcSJFwR4

Bouchera Chelbi, a schoolteacher who wears a Muslim headscarf, sat in the ornate salon rouge of the National Assembly and spilled her heart out to the legislators before her. Quebec’s plan to restrict teachers’ right to wear religious symbols, she said, was going to hurt.

“As a woman, I don’t accept that you dictate to me how I can dress,” she told the MNAs.

Ms. Chelbi’s comments were both pointed and remarkable: After six days of committee hearings into Quebec’s disputed legislation on religious symbols, she was the first and only teacher in a headscarf to address politicians about it