The Trudeau government on Thursday reiterated its intention to intervene if the legitimacy of the secularism law goes to the Supreme Court, an hour after announcing the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which ruled in Quebec's favor on almost all counts.
• Also read: The law on state secularism was upheld by the Court of Appeal
Ottawa would do this because the matter would then acquire “national importance,” said Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani on Thursday afternoon.
This is practically a formality, as at this point everyone is expecting the Quebec Court of Appeal decision to be appealed.
“On issues of national importance, our government and I firmly believe that the Government of Canada has a role to play, particularly in a context where we are addressing important Charter rights such as religious freedom rights and equality rights,” said the minister said.
Mr. Virani rejected the pre-emptive use of the derogation clause and insisted that the derogation clause should be a tool of “last resort” for Ottawa, in short, the “final word” of a “dialogue.”
“This idea that the first word should be the last word destroys what we see as dialogue between parliaments and courts,” he said.
Blanchet urges Trudeau not to intervene
The leader of the Bloc Québécois celebrated a “clear” decision from Quebec's top court while calling on the Trudeau government to “abandon any desire to attack the Quebec Consensus, now established as legal.”
“The real victory,” said Yves-François Blanchet, “is the recognition and the possibility of creating a lasting social peace in Quebec based on coexistence and respect for Quebec values. This is a great victory.”
According to the bloc leader, the Trudeau government poses a “significant challenge” not only because it will be “very difficult” for it to “take action against” the Quebec Court of Appeal, but at the same time it will also be “a… enormous burden that he has to explain to Quebecers”.
Earlier in the afternoon, NDP deputy leader Alexandre Boulerice claimed that the secularism law was “discriminatory” and that his party would continue to fight for “fundamental rights.”