By Joel Goldenberg
The Suburban
The Supreme Court of Canada decided last Thursday that it will hear the challenge against Bill 21 brought by the English Montreal School Board, Mubeenah Mughal and Pietro Mercuri against the Quebec government, including its pre-emptive use of the Notwithstanding clause.
Bill 21 prohibits the display of religious symbols in the legislature, courts, by police, by teachers in public schools and certain bureaucrats.
As reported by The Suburban, last March, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that Bill 21 is constitutional and dismissed requests for a judicial review and a declaratory judgment.
That three judge panel — composed of Manon Savard, Yves-Marie Morrissette and Marie-France Bich — agreed with a Superior Court judgment that Bill 21 is “valid with respect to division of powers and does not offend Canada’s constitutional architecture or the unwritten principles of the Constitution, nor does it offend any pre‑Confederation statute or principle having constitutional status.” The judgment also says that the use of the Notwithstanding clause was valid and in this case overrides the Quebec and Canadian Charters.
Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada Raymond Théberge stated that he was pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, and added that as Bill 21 “has undeniable effects on minority schools in Quebec, I will therefore be filing an application to intervene in this matter before the Supreme Court of Canada to address the interpretation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including with regard to the English speaking minority’s right to management and control over their facilities and instruction.”
Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette and Secularism Minister Jean-François Roberge posted that “secularism is a fundamental value for living together and a vector of social progress. It constitutes an individual right and protects the freedom and equality of all. It is through secularism that all Quebecers, of all affiliations, can come together and form a strong, modern and united nation.”
They added that an intervention by the federal government “would not only be disrespectful, but could not be considered anything other than an attack on the autonomy of the [provinces].”
English Montreal School Board chair Joe Ortona said the board, which based its case primarily on Section 23, maintains “our original position that Bill 21 conflicts with our values and our mission and with those of all Quebecers as expressed in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Its very adoption was contrary to our societal goal of promoting our peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic Quebec.
“[Bill 21 also] sends a message of intolerance and exclusion to our students and their families. We are pleased to go forward in front of the highest court in the country.”
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been granted leave to intervene in the case. “We look forward to arguing our case that Bill 21 is an unconstitutional law that harms people who are already marginalized and has no place in Canadian society,” the organization posted. n