JUST Committee Report

Dissenting Opinion of the Bloc Québécois

The Bloc Québécois commends the members of the Committee Clerks, analysts and all Library of Parliament staff for their professionalism and their work during this study, and it wishes to thank all the witnesses and members of the public who contributed to the debate and discussions. This study would not have been possible without them.

Pursuant to the motion of 21 March 2024, the Committee agreed that it would conduct two studies: one on Islamophobia and the other on antisemitism. In the interests of fairness, in view of the social climate aggravated by the war between the state of Israel and Hamas, and in consideration of the tensions on certain campuses, the Committee agreed that it would conduct these two studies simultaneously. The Bloc Québécois supported and actively participated in the Committee’s approach.

The Bloc Québécois strongly condemns the change in direction by the Committee, which was unable to resist the temptation to turn this important study into a trial of Quebec society, and vehemently opposes this report.

QUEBEC SECULARISM

The first recommendation in this report is to fully implement the recommendations of the 2023 Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights’ report Combatting Hate: Islamophobia and its impact on Muslims in Canada. However, this Senate report is so misinformed that it amounts to disinformation and anti-Quebec propaganda:

• The Senate states that Quebec secularism imposes religious discrimination instead of respect for religious neutrality, despite the fact that the legislation is based on freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
• The Senate condemns the use of the notwithstanding clause, which is a constitutional prerogative of Quebec, without which many of Quebec's social and historical advances, such as the agricultural succession legislation, employment equity legislation, small claims court and the youth court, would not have been possible. However, the members of the Canadian Senate, themselves non-elected, are questioning the legitimacy of these choices, which the Quebec National Assembly was legitimately entitled to make by invoking the notwithstanding clause.
• The Senate incorrectly suggests that the provision in the Act respecting the laicity of the State prohibiting individuals from wearing religious symbols while performing their duties is applied unequally or targets a specific group or denomination. The Act does not target any denomination, applies to everyone and is based on the principle that all citizens are equal. This is an unfounded and serious accusation.
• The Senate also added to the criticism of the Quebec model by stating: “the committee was shocked to learn that it [the law] also indirectly emboldened marginal racist groups and individuals”. The Senate, in blaming Quebec's secularism for racist intentions and acts in society, has erred and demonstrates a great misunderstanding of the Quebec nation.
• The Senate also took the liberty to suggest that democratic debate in Quebec is in itself a source of danger for victims of hate crimes, reporting that “public debate over secularism and religious symbols has closely correlated to a rise in hate crimes.” It's perhaps understandable that unelected legislators dislike democratic conversation, but we deplore it. It's easy for power that doesn't rest on the consent of the people to stay away from it.
• The Senate also states that “ultimately, Bill 21 has prompted many Muslims to leave Quebec, seeking career opportunities and greater inclusion elsewhere.” This is just disinformation.
• Lastly, the Senate saw fit to reproduce the words of former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, who called on the Senate to condemn “religiously bigoted laws across this country, including Bill 21 in Quebec.” Thus, against all logic and without any reasonable basis, the Senate has seen fit to call the Act respecting the laicity of the State religiously bigoted.

Whatever slanderous terms Canadian activists can come up with to express their rejection of Quebec legislation, the fact remains that the Canadian Parliament has no legitimacy to attack Quebec’s laws. The citizens of Quebec can legitimately oppose, in whole or in part, legislation such as the Act respecting the laicity of the State. They participate in a democratic conversation belonging to the Quebec nation that influences the decisions made up of members democratically elected by the Quebec National Assembly.

Therefore, the question is this: does the House of Commons really want to associate itself with the Senate’s public campaign to smear the Quebec nation? Adopting this report by the Justice Committee is precisely to do just that.

Regarding this report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, comments by certain witnesses about Quebec legislation, particularly the Act respecting the laicity of the State, misled Committee members about the purpose and effects of secularism. The way it is portrayed is not objective and is based neither on the content of the legislation nor on the literature regarding the secular nature of the State.

The quote from Canada’s special representative on combatting Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby, is revealing and appalling. Ms. Elghawaby, a federal official appointed by the Prime Minister, said that the Act respecting the laicity of the State creates “second-class citizenship” and that the Act “immediately … gives licence or permission to those who may hold discriminatory views to treat these citizens differently from others.”

This is incorrect, dishonest and undermines social cohesion. Ms. Elghawaby, or anyone else, would be unable to demonstrate that a piece of Quebec legislation would incite people to discriminate against others.

The Committee is inconsiderate and misguided when it suggests that secularism is incompatible with liberal democracy. Secularism is a humanist and democratic principle based on four key pillars:

• religious neutrality of the state
• separation of church and state
• equality of citizens
• freedom of belief

Canada opted for the model of religious neutrality, where religious affiliations can be expressed within the state, including by public officials in positions of authority. The Canadian legal tradition is based largely on the British tradition. Great Britain is a country with a state religion (Anglican in England, Presbyterian in Scotland), of which the sovereign is the guardian. With the UK unable to take religion out of the state, the only way it could deal with religious diversity was to allow all religions to have a place. This is the model that Canada has replicated.

Quebec, which has a different legal tradition and unique historical experience, has opted for another model – secularism. This is a legitimate choice adopted by several democratic states. The European Court of Human Rights has heard 14 cases concerning the banning of religious symbols in the education system. In all cases, it has ruled that these laws are consistent with fundamental rights, particularly those concerning freedom of conscience and religion.[1]

In Quebec, secularism is not a barrier to respecting diversity, but rather a condition for it. It is because Quebec is a pluralistic society and because citizens, equal before the law, enjoy freedom of conscience and belief that the state and its agents are subject to a duty of restraint. This is all the more important in our education system, where we defend the right of Quebec students to a secular public education. In this way, the Act respecting the laicity of the State contributes to the secularization of Quebec schools, which began with the creation of the Department of Education and the public education system in 1964.

We can appreciate that the political philosophy and conception of citizenship underpinning Quebec’s approach to secularism can be foreign to Canadians influenced by Anglo-American liberalism. Whether or not they are are interested in knowing Quebec's rich history, nothing gives them the right to judge Quebec’s democratic choices. Furthermore, statements equating the democratic choices of Quebeckers with a kind of intolerance that is inherent to the nation are themselves an expression of intolerance, the product of a cultural bias, that must be condemned.

All things considered, the federal Parliament does not have the authority to judge Quebec laws, and the House of Commons should not repeat the affront committed by the Senate, which took part in the denigration of Quebec’s distinct character as well as publicly displayed its ignorance of Quebec society and absolute lack of understanding of the political and philosophical challenges so central to democratic discussion in Quebec.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Bloc Québécois firmly believes in democratic values and institutions. Our campaign for sovereignty is democratic, inclusive and consistent with human rights and freedoms. Our politics are guided by humanist principles and a steadfast commitment to the value, dignity and autonomy of individuals. At every opportunity and as often as necessary, we condemn in the strongest terms all forms of hate speech and hate crimes.

In Quebec, as in Canada, hatred and discrimination are intolerable, and public authorities are right to take actions to condemn and combat them. The deadly assault on the Great Mosque of Quebec City, the van attack on a Muslim family in London, Ontario, a series of violent incidents, threats and hatred online have devastating tangible effects on their victims and their loved ones while making people from Muslim cultural or religious backgrounds feel unsafe.

While the Committee’s study, and in particular the testimony heard and the many briefs received, will inform decision makers and suggest useful and relevant courses of action, the Bloc Québécois believes that the recommendations to the House and the government contained in the main report do not constitute a carefully tailored response.

In Canada, legislative authority is divided between the Parliament of Canada and the legislative assemblies of the provinces, and each is fully independent in its assigned exclusive fields of jurisdiction. The fight against discrimination and racism and the promotion of individual and collective rights are not specific fields of jurisdiction, so public problems and the policies intended to address them must be linked to the jurisdiction of one order of government or the other.

Yet, many of the recommendations in the main report propose public policies that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The federal government has its own responsibilities regarding the fight against racism and the promotion of rights. First, its legislative authority over criminal law enables it to crack down on hate speech and hateful acts. To that end, the Bloc Québécois proposed legislative measures to more effectively combat hate crime. Second, its jurisdiction over telecommunications, including online communications, gives it every opportunity to address a crucial aspect of racism: online hate speech.

Furthermore, the federal government, as Canada’s largest employer, must promote discrimination-free workplaces and is responsible for taking action on the workplaces under its jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois believes it is pointless and counterproductive for parliamentarians to issue public policy recommendations in areas outside Parliament’s jurisdiction. This growing tendency among House of Commons committees is especially regrettable when it concerns critical public problems, such as the protection of fundamental rights and efforts to combat hatred, violence and discrimination, because these problems do call for a tailored public response – that is, a realistic and effective one.

It has become common at the House to awkwardly add the phrase “without infringing provincial jurisdiction” or similar wording when the proposal being made is not strictly consistent with that jurisdiction. This practice reveals that parliamentarians are playing fast and loose with the Constitution and the very foundations of Canadian federalism, betraying a preference for moving toward a centralized state, or that they are admitting the policy they intend to support will fail, or both. The Bloc Québécois rejects that approach, which dishonours the institution and shows a lack of regard for the public, who have a right to expect public authorities to propose solutions that are relevant and tailored to the problems they face.

As Quebec sovereigntists engaged in federal politics, we fully understand any dissatisfaction with Canada’s fundamentally dysfunctional federal system. But that does not change the basic fact of public policymaking that a policy’s success depends on properly accounting for the institutional environment and social reality in which it is created and implemented.

Accordingly, the Bloc Québécois supports some of the recommendations that would enable the federal government to improve its practices and policies, mobilize the machinery of government to fight discrimination and hatred, and amend legislation, including the Criminal Code, to better protect individuals and communities from hateful acts and hate crimes.

Parliament should look to the Bloc Québécois’s proposal to eliminate the religious exception to the legislative provisions criminalizing hate speech and the incitement of violence. The Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, and Bloc Québécois Critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and Human Rights, has introduced Bill C ‑373, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to eliminate as a defence against wilful promotion of hatred the fact that a person, in good faith, expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. A number of witnesses welcomed the bill, and the Bloc Québécois believes that this proposal should have been included in the report’s recommendations.

We are also opposed to recommendations that suggest federal intervention in Quebec's exclusive jurisdictions, particularly in the field of education. It is unacceptable that the federal government should invent for itself rights of oversight over the administration of educational establishments, particularly in terms of hiring and curriculum content. The support of some, indeed a majority, of federal parliamentarians for these disturbing proposals deserves to be denounced.

In particular, the Bloc Québécois wishes to state its profound disagreement with recommendation no. 13 of the Main Report. This recommendation, in addition to being a flagrant intrusion into the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces in matters of education, calls for “increasing the representation of Muslim, Palestinian and Arab faculty members”. It is inconceivable that Quebec and Canadian universities should have a quota of Muslim, Palestinian or Arab professors, and the Bloc Québécois will never support the idea of professors being appointed on the basis of their religion or ethnicity, rather than their knowledge and competence. This recommendation goes completely against academic freedom and the autonomy of post-secondary educational institutions.

We would add that this proposal to impose ethnic and religious hiring in universities clearly stems from a request made by Ms. Amira Elghawaby, Canada's Special Representative for Combating Islamophobia, in September 2024. On September 17, 2024, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion denouncing Ms. Elghawaby's remarks. The Bloc Québécois also immediately expressed its firm opposition to Ms. Elghawaby's request.

Overall, the report seems silent on a key fact: Quebec has its own anti-discrimination policies and policies to promote and defend human rights, and these issues are also considered by the Quebec nation’s elected officials, who sit in the Quebec National Assembly. The Government of Quebec is and must remain in charge of the fight against racism in Quebec. While the issue the Committee studied is important to both the Canadian nation and the Quebec nation, let us be clear that our two nations hold separate and parallel democratic conversations on the aspects of the issue fundamental to them.

The ability to live in harmony, the management of social diversity, intercultural dialogue, cultural and linguistic sovereignty, the integration of immigrants, the secular state, the protection and promotion of rights and the fight against discrimination are all fundamental issues for the Quebec nation.

As provided by the Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec state, the Quebec government is sovereign in its fields of jurisdiction. The Quebec National Assembly consists of members elected by universal suffrage by the Quebec people and derives its legitimacy from them, being the only legislative body exclusive to them. All matters relating to the future of the Quebec people fall within the rights and prerogatives of the National Assembly.

The National Assembly did not ratify the Constitution Act, 1982, and on the 30^th anniversary of that constitutional power grab, it unanimously and formally reaffirmed that it had never endorsed that Act, which limited Quebec’s rights and powers without its consent and remains unacceptable to Quebec.

In Quebec, the Charter of human rights and freedoms establishes and protects fundamental rights. The Quebec Charter protects every person’s right to dignity and equality. It prohibits all discrimination based on ethnic or national origin, skin colour and other factors.

Section 9.1 of the Quebec Charter also states the following: “In exercising his human rights and freedoms, a person shall maintain a proper regard for democratic values, State laicity, the importance given to the protection of French, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec.”

Consequently, Parliament must refrain from legislating on matters that are fundamental to the Quebec people.

If Canada intends to be on good terms with the Quebec nation, its elected officials must recognize Quebec’s firm commitment to upholding human rights and freedoms, acknowledge that Quebec did not ratify the Constitution Act, 1982, and practise asymmetric federalism in accordance with the House of Commons motion recognizing the Quebec nation.

This recognition should include passing federal legislation providing that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply to Quebec, given that the Québécois constitute a nation and that they therefore possess all the tools required to define their identity, embrace pluralism and protect their common values.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced such legislation in the House of Commons on several occasions. Most recently, we introduced Bill C‑226, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, during the 43^rd Parliament. On Wednesday, 9 June 2021, parliamentarians from the Canadian parties, including their federalist representatives from Quebec, voted against this Bloc Québécois proposal.

In conclusion, federal anti-discrimination policies not only would be more effective if they better accounted for the respective responsibilities of the various public authorities involved, but also could become more coherent if they recognized Canada’s multinational nature and allowed for different policies in Quebec.