RSS FeedConsidering the Constitutionality of Bill 94
May 18 is the national day of action against Bill 94, the proposed legislation in Quebec, which if approved, would deny essential government services, public employment, educational opportunities, and health care to Muslim women who wear niqab (face veil). A rally has been arranged in Toronto to take place at 1PM at 20 Queen Street W. Other actions, such as contacting MPs, are also urged for that day.
In her essay, Bill 94: Quebec’s Niqab Ban and Sex Equality, Beverley Baines, professor of Law and the head of the Gender Studies Department at Queen’s University, considers the Bill within Constitutional a framework that should, by now, be familiar to all the former first-years who’ll have written very similar case scenarios during their final exams lo these two weeks ago:
If Bill 94 becomes law, a constitutional challenge would begin with the two preliminary issues that are raised in any Charter challenge. First, does the Charter apply to the impugned action? Here the answer is yes because the impugned action is a statute and the Charter applies to legislation. Second, does the party bringing the Charter challenge have standing to proceed, that is, does the party have an interest that is harmed by the law? Again the answer is yes because the party bringing this hypothetical Charter challenge is a woman who has been or is about to be excluded from providing or receiving a government service in Quebec because her face is covered by the niqab. With these preliminaries satisfied, the next steps are to ask: (i) have one or more Charter rights been violated? And if so, (ii) can Quebec justify violating these Charter rights? What follows are two possible Charter scenarios, the first more conventional than the second.
She concludes:
Women seeking to challenge the niqab ban should invoke their right to sex equality to emphasize their belief in the consistency between this right and their reasons for wearing the niqab. Their challenge would force Quebec to fall back on its second or institutional justification – reasons of security, communication, identification – to justify denying reasonable accommodation. If Quebec has any evidence to sustain these reasons, why should it not be produced, contested and evaluated? The failure to manifest transparency suggests this evidence may not be as conclusive as Quebec asserts. Moreover, Quebec needs to explain why other more minimally rights-impairing processes would not be sufficiently responsive to its institutional concerns. Finally, Quebec should articulate how its institutional reasons could possibly trump sex equality, given everything this province claimed about the priority that should be given to sex equality during the drafting of s. 50.1? Does sex equality matter only when Quebec claims to be its primary exponent?
Why Québéc Cannot and Should not Ban the Niqab
An article jointly written by David Shulman and Lawrence Gridin
Last week the government of Québéc announced that it would restrict female Muslims from covering their faces with the niqab. This article is about the fundamental freedoms that we enjoy as Canadians and human beings, and the power of the government to encroach upon those freedoms.
The legislation proposed in Québéc will prevent a woman wearing a niqab from being able to access public services, including consulting doctors at a hospital or attending classes at university. It also prevents all government employees from wearing a niqab, including those employees who have no contact with the public. More details can be found here.
Prime Minister Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff have announced that they support the ban, and a large (if not overwhelming) majority of Canadians agree with them.
A Primer on Freedom
Let’s begin our discussion with a review of the Ann Coulter affair, which bears some analogues to the Québéc niqab issue.
We cannot think of another person whom we personally disagree with more on virtually every dimension than Ms. Coutler. We have difficulty thinking of anyone else who spews out as much vile hate, ignorance and prejudice as Ms. Coulter. We’re bothered by the fact that there is any demand — outside of perhaps morbid curiosity — for her wares at all.
Here are three pieces, taken from Ms. Coulter’s repertoire, that support our opinion:
“They’re [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s repress them. Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”
- University of Florida speech, October 20, 2005.
“I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood’ to be flogged publicly.”
- MSNBC, March 22, 1997.
“I think [women] should be armed but should not vote…women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it…it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”
- Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001.
Despite our profound disagreement with her views, we would fight vigorously to protect Ms. Coulter’s right to express them. The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We would proudly defend her right to freedom of expression in any court with every ounce of our ability and integrity, just as vigorously as we would defend our own right to criticize and disagree with her views.
Why?
How to secede from Ontario
So what if Toronto became a province? Why would that be a bad idea? Regardless of the arguments for and against, Toronto can never become a province unless there is a lawful way to that goal, and there are several. In any case, separation will require a referendum in the city. If Toronto wishes to leave, Ontario will have to start good-faith negotiations. And even if the talks break down, there seems to be a constitutional way for Toronto to become a province without Ontario’s consent.
First, any decision to separate will require a referendum in Toronto. Just a vote in the city council will not be enough because the issue is so momentous. We have some legal precedent on this issue because the independence question was raised in referendums several times in Quebec. In the Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court said that a successful referendum will give necessary legitimacy to Quebec government’s effort to secede. I don’t see any other way to give legitimacy to the effort of Toronto to form its own province.
Second, if the people of Toronto say yes to becoming a province in a referendum, Ontario will be under an obligation to negotiate with representatives of the city. This also follows from the Reference re Secession of Quebec. The difference, of course, is that Quebec has original sovereignty as a province, and the City of Toronto is legally a creature of an Ontario statute. But in essence, the same principles should apply: if a huge number of people in a large community want something, the government should listen and talk. Besides, Toronto is not just a city: it’s older than both Ontario and Canada. Its population and economic output are bigger than population and GDP of nine Canadian provinces. It’s a critical part of the country, and if it speaks loudly about its own destiny, Ontario has a legal duty to negotiate.
There are at least three possible outcomes of these negotiations:
1. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario passes a law granting unique and broad powers to the City of Toronto. The new authority should approach that of a province. The law should be a super-statute like the Ontario’s Human Rights Code. It should prevail over any other Ontario law. The problem with this solution is that Queen’s Park will keep the power to change or repeal this statute despite its “super” attribute. Unless there is way to bind the Ontario legislature with stringent amendment limitations like those found in the Canadian constitution, the super-statute will last only as long as the political will of the provincial parliament.
2. Ontario adopts a written constitution with amendment restrictions similar to those of the federal constitution. The new powers of the City of Toronto become a part of the Ontario constitution subject to amendment only in rare cases of clear consent of a great majority of Torontonians and Ontarians. I have no idea how to make this work. When Canada needed a constitution binding on its own parliament, it had to ask the UK parliament to pass a special law. It’s unclear how the federal parliament could play the part the UK parliament once played for Canada, because a future Ontario government could challenge that intervention on federalism grounds. How a province can adopt a binding constitution is a great topic for legal scholars, but I don’t see a practical way to do it.
3. Canada amends its own constitution making Toronto a full province. That’s the best way for the city. It will ensure more legitimacy and legal certainty so Toronto can focus on its future instead of endless litigation with Queen’s Park. Sections 42 and 38(1) of The Constitution Act, 1982 set the procedure for forming a new province: consent of the Parliament of Canada and legislatures of at least two thirds of Canadian provinces that together have at least half of Canada’s population. In my reading of the Constitution, Ontario’s consent won’t even be necessary, but if Ontario says no, then Quebec’s and probably BC’s yes will be required. Imagine the headlines: “Quebec helps Toronto secede from Ontario!”
Hopefully, it will not come to this, and the growing crisis in the relations between Toronto and Ontario will be resolved. But if Toronto is determined to get a special status to reflect its role in Ontario and Canada, it certainly has lawful paths to that objective. What’s needed is the political will on both sides.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
Sexual assault sentencing
Quebec woman avoids jail for sex assault on son
A 55-year-old woman has been given a conditional sentence, to be served in the community, for sexually assaulting her teenage son.
Journalistic privilege
Paper fights to shield its source
Tonda MacCharles writes for the Toronto Star:
The constitutional guarantee of a free press is “meaningless” if it does not protect journalists from being forced to reveal the identity of confidential sources, media lawyers argued Wednesday before the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the second case this year revolving around the role confidential sources play in freedom of the press, lawyers for The Globe and Mail, a group of Quebec newspapers, the Fédération des journalistes professionelles du Québec, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association urged judges to shield the identity of a source key to the reporting of the sponsorship scandal in Quebec.
If the client-lawyer relationship is privileged, why shouldn’t the journalist-source relationship be privileged too?
Canada’s own version of SEC to be vetted by Supreme Court
Ottawa to seek top court ruling on single securities regulator
Unlike the US, Canada doesn’t have a national securities regulator. Canadian constitution is somewhat equivocal in its division of powers between provinces and Ottawa. It sounds like a good idea for the federal government to refer its plans to the Supreme Court before spending money and influencing securities markets. Especially, since one province is not happy about these plans at all.
Les Whittington writes for the Toronto Star:
[Flaherty] has been supported by the province of Ontario and many other provinces. But the province of Quebec is against a single regulator, which it considers an infringement on its political autonomy under the constitution.
Corruption
Montreal Mafia controls 80 per cent of road contracts, whistleblower says
“There is a group that controls contracts on [Montreal] Island, passing them around, one after the other, we call them the Fabulous Fourteen,” said Paul Sauvé, a contractor who says he was threatened into making political contributions for a contract to restore the roof on Montreal City Hall.
Where is Transparency International when you need it.
Corruption alleged in high circles
Former Quebec lieutenant-governor facing charges
Rhéal Seguin writes:
Quebec’s former lieutenant-governor Lise Thibault is facing criminal charges involving fraud, breach of trust, forgery and fabrication of false documents related to the misspending of public funds during her ten years in office.
Crown liability for negligent release from jail
Father seeks compensation for son killed by pedophile
Bastien was out on an extended pass from a detention centre where he was serving time for several unrelated offences.
Three weeks after the slaying, then-public security minister Serge Ménard said Bastien shouldn’t have been let out.
Don’t drink and drive, or else…
Is a repeat drunk driver a dangerous offender?
Should the courts crack down on people with multiple drunk driving convictions?
Toronto Star reporter Carmen Chai writes:
A Quebec judge will decide this week if a repeat impaired driver will be branded as a dangerous offender … a designation typically reserved for murderers and serial rapists.
Definition of marriage again
‘Lola’ continues fight for common-law alimony
Judge Carole Hallee ruled against Lola last month, saying there wasn’t evidence unmarried partners were being discriminated against, and that to recognize all couples in a relationship of permanence as “married” would deny people the choice not to marry.
There are Ponzi schemes in Canada too
Financier out on bail as bilked victims fume
Jones is accused of defrauding up to 200 investors, many of them elderly, of between $30 million and $50 million in what Quebec’s financial securities regulator believes was an intricate Ponzi scheme.
