The federal Conservatives are trying to reassure the World Sikh Organization of Canada that the party remains opposed to Quebec’s secularism law after its MPs voted in support of a provision the province used to create it.
On Monday, the Conservatives voted en masse in favour of a Bloc Quebecois motion recognizing that provinces have a “legitimate right” to use the notwithstanding clause, including pre-emptively.
Asked for its rationale during a news conference held on a separate issue Tuesday, finance critic Jasraj Singh Hallan sidestepped questions regarding Bill 21, while Pierre Paul-Hus, the party’s main Quebec representative, called the debate a waste of time.
But in a Tuesday letter to Balpreet Singh, a spokesman for the Sikh association, deputy Conservative leader Tim Uppal accused the Liberals of trying to spin a narrative that the Conservatives explicitly support the “pre-emptive use” of the clause.
The notwithstanding clause is a provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows provincial and federal governments to pass laws that circumvent parts of the Charter for a period of up to five years.
When the clause is invoked pre-emptively, it effectively prevents anyone from launching a legal challenge in court.
“We’re talking about the suspension of human rights and the erosion of the Charter,” Singh said. “And that’s a huge hit. Not just for minorities, but for all Canadians.”
The Sikh organization is among a number of groups vocally opposed to Quebec’s secularism law, which bans some public servants in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols such as turbans at work.
Premier François Legault’s government invoked the notwithstanding clause to usher in the law, as well as Bill 96, which reforms provincial language laws.
In 2021, the Ontario government used the notwithstanding clause to restore parts of the Election Finances Act. It also invoked the clause last year to impose a new contract on education workers, but quickly backed down from the measure.
In his letter, Uppal said the notwithstanding provision is a “long-standing part” of the Charter and the ability of provinces to use it is “the legal reality.”
He goes on to say Trudeau’s government has “not made any attempts to change it,” despite having been in power since 2015.
“Since Bill 21 was introduced in March of 2019, the Liberal government has taken no action in the courts to oppose it,” Uppal said.
Uppal said that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been clear he is opposed to the Quebec law, and while he respects the province’s ability to pass its own legislation, he hopes it is repealed. Poilievre’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Under its former leader, Ontario MP Erin O’Toole, the party’s stance on the secularism law became a topic of contention within caucus, as many demanded he adopt a tougher position. It was one of the final battles he faced before being voted out by his MPs.
Singh said Tuesday that he appreciates the party’s clarification, but is disappointed with the Conservatives for choosing to vote for a motion that appears to be “empowering” provinces to use the clause.
“You can’t say that they can use the notwithstanding clause willy-nilly,” he suggested, while also arguing against Bill 21.
For National Council of Canadian Muslims CEO Stephen Brown, whose organization also challenged the law, those two positions cannot be reconciled.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too,” he said.
“It comes down to a very simple question: do we live in a country where your government can take away your rights without any justification whatsoever? That’s the fundamental question that everybody needs to answer. ”
Lori Turnbull, a professor of political science at Dalhousie University, said Poilievre wants to avoid finding himself wedged on the issue, particularly because he hopes to grow his party’s support in Quebec.
She said overall, there is a stark contrast to how liberals and conservatives view the clause. While liberals view it is an emergency option to be use sparingly, Turnbull suggests conservatives appear to be trying to “normalize” its use as another tool at its disposal.
However, she said Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s rationale for using it tends to focus on spending decisions, while Legault’s revolves around secularism and individual freedoms.
Comments