In a recent newspaper interview The press, Justin Trudeau said he is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court to limit the use of the regardless clause. In certain circumstances, it allows elected officials to uphold a law on behalf of the Charter that has been (or may be) invalidated by courts. This case deserves several comments.
Trudeau denies targeting Quebec. However, since 1982 we have invoked this clause about 70 times. In the Central African Republic it was only used once in Ontario, Yukon and Saskatchewan. Here, how can we believe that we are not being targeted?
Rights are not absolute
The prime minister justifies himself by saying that “we trivialize the suspension of fundamental rights”. It is wrong. Rights are not absolute, otherwise there would be anarchy. For example, you cannot scream fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire and then invoke your freedom of speech to justify yourself. The decisive factor is what the limit of what is reasonable is.
Before the charter was passed, parliamentarians decided where to draw the line. Since then, Ottawa-appointed judges have inherited much of that power. They invalidate democratically enacted laws by invoking the charter, thereby enforcing their idea of reasonableness. From this perspective, the waiver clause is not a license to violate our rights. Rather, it is a way for parliamentarians to reinforce their idea of the limits to be respected.
Worse than Trump
Trudeau also justifies himself by citing the rise of populism in the United States and the 2016 election of Trump. He explains that the latter took the opportunity to appoint partisan right-wing judges. Sure, but that’s exactly what Trudeau is doing by choosing judges who support multiculturalism. For example, he appointed Aziz Hussein to the Superior Court. When he was a lawyer for an anti-Law 21 group in 2021, they compared that legislation to the Nuremberg Laws that led to the Holocaust, no less!
The head of the FBI also elected Mahmud Jamal for the Supreme Court. As an attorney, he was also involved in the challenge to Bill 21. After all, Trump did not shy away from politicizing the courts to his advantage, unlike the Federal Prime Minister.
He says he wants to exact a high political price if a province uses the impatience clause. This blackmail illustrates an essential function of the charter. When the Quebec national minority legislate to protect their culture using the “nonetheless” clause, as with Acts 21 and 96, the Anglo-Canadian majority and the federal authorities accuse us of being intolerant of rights and freedoms violate.
The worst thing about the story is certainly the reaction of Marc Tanguay, leader of the opposition. He openly encouraged Ottawa to move forward, he who holds high political office in his nation. Under a charter imposed on us, the Liberal leader is openly collaborating with federal authorities to limit the autonomy of his own people!
