Task Force on Linguistic Policy

Task Force granted SCC intervener status in Bill 21 case

Local Journalism Initiative / / / ,

By Dan Laxer
The Suburban

The Task Force on Linguistic Policy has been granted intervener status in the case against Bill 21 at the Supreme Court of Canada, The Suburban has learned.

The organization announced that it will be permitted to plead in the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Bill 21 case involving the English Montreal School Board and the Quebec government. No date has been set in the case, yet. But Task Force president Andrew Caddell will be there, along with other interveners.

“This will be one of the most important, if not the most important, cases before the Supreme Court,” says Task Force lawyer Michael Bergman. “This case will determine the definition, scope and application of the Notwithstanding Clause.”

The Task Force applied for intervener status in May. Its focus will be on the use of Section 33 of the Constitution, the Notwithstanding Clause which, the Task Force says, nullifies key sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with legal rights, equality rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.

“Our case will challenge Section 33 in a way other interveners will not,” says Caddell. “We argue that rights are rights are rights,” he says, echoing the famous words of former politician Clifford Lincoln, “and were not nullified with the introduction of the Charter of Rights in 1982.” Bergman adds that “the Charter codifies rights, but we insist it cannot take them away. If the Notwithstanding Clause can arbitrarily cancel fundamental rights, then what remains of the Charter is a mere skeleton.”

The Task Force will be an intervener because this case affects its own challenge to Bill 96, which was submitted to Quebec Superior Court on May 31, 2023. Its case focuses on the existence of rights prior to the drafting of the Charter in 1982. Andrew Caddell notes, “the Task Force is concerned the Supreme Court will allow Section 33 to run roughshod over those rights. Hence, we must be present in the Bill 21 case.” n

Task Force granted SCC intervener status in Bill 21 case Read More »

Task Force’s Caddell denounces investigation by QMC

Local Journalism Initiative / / / , , ,

By Joel Goldenberg
The Suburban

Andrew Caddell, president of the Task Force On Linguistic Policy, is denouncing Quebec’s system allowing anonymous complaints, whether related to Quebec’s language laws or, in his case, a Quebec Municipal Commission complaint.

“We should be concerned about the use of anonymous complaints and concentration of power as they are signs of authoritarianism,” Caddell wrote recently.

Caddell, who is also a councillor in Kamouraska, has, with the Task Force, been fighting Quebec’s language law Bill 96 in court. A recent Superior Court judgment said that the federal government cannot be forced to become a respondent in that case.

The complaint to the QMC alleges that Caddell breached ethics and professional conduct rules late last year, violating his municipality’s code of ethics. Caddell allegedly posted in defence of the Quebec anglophone community, “go f–k yourself. C’est évident que vous etes un vrai ‘’loser’’ et pleurnichard.” (“It’s obvious you are a real loser and crybaby.”)

Caddell responded that while there have been accusations of “creeping fascism” as relates to the Trump government and right wing voting trends in Europe, “here in the Quebec ‘nation’, we see a rise in authoritarianism, illustrated by Premier François Legault’s government’s embrace of extreme nationalism, and its desire to concentrate power in Quebec City.

“For example, the creation of the new health agency, Santé Quebec, eliminated the autonomy of hospital boards, while the closing of school boards placed authority in the bureaucracy. Furthermore, Bills 21 and 96 became law under the cloak of the notwithstanding clause, imposing rules of dress and language on Quebec’s minorities. And now the government’s new Bill 84 offers directives on behaviour and culture, outlining ‘appropriate’ ways of integrating into Quebec society.”

Caddell also cited the Quebec government’s allowance of anonymous complaints in relation to the language law and, potentially, the secularism law.

Regarding the specific complaint against him, Caddell provided context, saying his postings were in defence of the rights of English Quebecers.

“At the end of December, I was attacked with insults like ‘raciste,’ ‘Rhodesien,’ ‘KKKanada’, and ‘supremaciste.’ Anyone who knows me would attest I am none of those things. I replied I am a francophile with roots back to 1640, who chose to return to Quebec from Ottawa in 2020. I noted my work on Kamouraska town council is entirely in French. As the insults escalated, I ramped up my replies with a few choice words. After a few days, I forgot about it.”

Caddell said he received a call from someone alleging to be from the Quebec Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and he demanded to see the complaint in writing, which he later received.

“Since then, I have been communicating with the Inquiries Division of the Municipal Affairs Commission, expecting they would ignore such a malicious complaint,” Caddell wrote. “Instead, on March 12, they wrote to say they are pursuing me, and I could be fined up to $4,000 or be suspended from my seat on council. An administrative tribunal, conducted in French, will decide my fate. Needless to say, it has been stressful.”

Caddell wrote that some of the evidence against him includes statements he made in his capacity with the Task Force, implying that “there was an ethical conflict between my work as a town councillor and as volunteer head of an organization dedicated to serving Quebec anglophones.

“This whole episode is troubling: the use of anonymous complaints as evidence is contrary to the historic principle everyone has the right to face their accuser in court. And although this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, I have no right under Section 133 of the Constitution to have my hearing in English. It’s appalling someone can attack me with malice aforethought, and I have no recourse to respond.” n

Task Force’s Caddell denounces investigation by QMC Read More »

Court rules Feds not obliged to take part in anti-96 case

Local Journalism Initiative / / / , , , ,

By Joel Goldenberg
The Suburban

Quebec Superior Court Judge Marc St-Pierre ruled last week that the federal government does not have to be a respondent in the Task Force on Linguistic Policy’s case against Quebec’s language law Bill 96.

The court ruling noted that it “cannot or should not force” the federal government to be a part of the case against the language law, and that the Task Force and the other complainants in the case are able to make their case on their own against Bill 96 and Quebec’s Attorney-General.

Task Force President Andrew Caddell told The Suburban that it is “disappointing the judge sided with the federal Attorney-General.

‘We now have a new Attorney-General in Gary Anandasangaree, but I am skeptical as to whether he will be knowledgeable enough to respond to any of the details of cases like ours. We believe the Trudeau PMO just wants this to go away, as they did with so many things concerning the Anglophone community in Quebec.”

Caddell added that last week’s decision “does not mean we cannot proceed with our case — just that we will be fighting the AG of Quebec.

“We have 30 days to appeal the decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal. I have asked the Board of the Task Force to decide. Our next meeting will be in a week or so, and we will let our members know once the Board has made its decision.”

As reported by The Suburban, the Task Force said last September that it included the federal government as a respondent for “refusing to defend the Constitution of Canada… against the unilateral declaration of Quebec as an exclusive French-speaking nation in the Constitution. It is also due to the incorporation of the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, in Bill C-13, the new federal Official Languages Act.”

Michael Bergman, lawyer for the Task Force, told a town hall recently that a victory would have set an important precedent.

“It will be the first case of its kind on the notion that Canada must defend the integrity of the supreme law, the Canadian constitution,” Bergman told the virtual meeting, which was attended by nearly 100 people. “If Canada won’t defend it — that every province can start making unilateral amendments — the Canadian constitution will no longer be a unifying document. It will be like a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces don’t quite fit together, it will break into different pieces with different rules.”

The plaintiffs in the ongoing case against Bill 96 include Caddell, “general plaintiffs acting as public interest litigants, as a constitutional question; a teacher concerned about his status due to education provisions in Bill 96, a businessperson whose commercial affairs are affected by Bill 96, a permanent resident with an autoimmune disease who cannot receive communications in English and a mother whose autistic child has not been able to receive proper specialized care because his first language is English.” n

Court rules Feds not obliged to take part in anti-96 case Read More »

Scroll to Top