Khan: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

Valid issue but nuclear option more theoretical than practical:

…Is it time for the nuclear option to be met by a thermonuclear one? Some have urged the federal government to see the provinces’ notwithstanding clause and raise them disallowance – the federal power to nullify a provincial law deemed unjust. And Senator Peter Harder has tabled Bill S-218, which places guardrails on the use of the notwithstanding clause at the federal level, including prohibiting pre-emptive use. 

A Charter statement must accompany an infringing bill which indicates which rights are infringed, the potential effects of the bill, and why Section 1 of the Charter cannot be used instead. Section 1 allows for reasonable limits on rights. There must be full debate. Finally, a super-majority in the House is required for passage.

Bill S-218 has sparked interest at the provincial level. Manitoba’s government has tabled legislation that would require full judicial scrutiny of any future government use of the clause, making sure the public is fully informed of a court’s inquiry. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew vows his government will never use it: “The reason is simple – because we respect human rights as they are articulated in the Charter.” 

If only other premiers were so respectful of Canadians’ rights.

Source: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Ottawa’s strong borders bill could infringe on Charter and privacy rights, parliamentary study warns

2025/08/28 Leave a comment

Reinforces court challenges:

….The library received requests from MPs for an analysis of Bill C-2 and has made available a preliminary version of its research to help them and others understand the bill. 

Its findings follow similar warnings from lawyers and civil-liberties experts. They have predicted that, if passed, the bill could face legal challenges. Refugee advocates and migrant groups have criticized Bill C-2’s proposed changes to immigration and asylum law. 

The Library of Parliament’s in-depth look at the bill raises particular concerns about so-called lawful access provisions to give police, Canada’s spy agency and other public officers warrantless powers to demand information.

The bill would allow law-enforcement officers without warrants to demand information on whether people have used various services, such as internet providers, medical services, hotels, mailboxes or banks….

An assessment earlier this year by the federal Justice Department found that various provisions in Bill C-2 clash with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including clauses protecting Canadians against unreasonable searches and seizures. 

The Library of Parliament found that, as well as potentially clashing with the Charter, the bill may be framed to “circumvent” decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada that confirm the right to privacy online. 

It warns that the bill’s “expanded surveillance and data-sharing powers from law enforcement and other government agencies could potentially lead to discriminatory profiling or targeting, particularly in the context of immigration enforcement.” 

“Enhanced authority for law enforcement to access internet subscriber data without a warrant, as well as data-sharing between Canadian and foreign authorities allowed under Bill C-2, could disproportionately affect racialized and immigrant communities,” it says. 

It also raises concerns about measures to help the police and intelligence services get access to data. The CCLA warns the measures could force online services to redesign how they operate. …

Source: Ottawa’s strong borders bill could infringe on Charter and privacy rights, parliamentary study warns

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Yakabuski: Le parti de la Charte

2025/04/07 Leave a comment

Right signal on pre-emptive use of the Charter:

…Lorsqu’on lui a demandé si son gouvernement avait l’intention d’intervenir devant la Cour suprême du Canada dans l’éventualité où cette loi se trouverait devant le plus haut tribunal du pays, M. Carney a répondu par l’affirmative. « Mon gouvernement a un malaise avec l’utilisation [préventive] de la “clause nonobstant” », a-t-il affirmé à propos de la disposition de dérogation enchâssée dans la section 33 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. « L’enjeu est [de savoir si] on a des droits ici au Canada ou non. Un droit est un droit. Si on utilise trop souvent la “clause nonobstant” de manière [préventive], on dit qu’on n’a pas de charte des droits ici au Canada. C’est une question pour la Cour suprême. Ce n’est pas plus compliqué que cela. »

Or, la Cour suprême s’apprête déjà à examiner la question du recours préventif à la disposition de dérogation dans le dossier de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État québécois, la loi 21. Cette cause sera entendue bien avant que toute contestation de la loi 96 puisse arriver devant le plus haut tribunal du pays.

S’il s’oppose uniquement à l’utilisation préventive de cette disposition, pourquoi M. Carney souhaite-t-il intervenir dans le dossier de la loi 96 si la question doit être, selon toute probabilité, réglée avant même que la Cour suprême n’accepte d’examiner ce texte législatif ? Est-ce que le chef libéral aurait plutôt sauté sur l’occasion de se prononcer sur la loi 96 afin d’envoyer un signal affirmant qu’il entend défendre la minorité anglophone du Québec ? Lui seul le sait.

Ce qui est toutefois clair, c’est qu’un gouvernement fédéral mené par Mark Carney chercherait à éliminer la capacité des gouvernements provinciaux à recourir préalablement à la disposition de dérogation. Ce n’est pas un détail. Le délai entre l’adoption d’une loi provinciale et le moment où la Cour suprême détermine si elle viole la Charte canadienne des droits peut s’étendre sur plusieurs années. La loi 21 fut adoptée en 2019, et on ne sait toujours pas ce qu’en pense le plus haut tribunal du pays.

En interdisant aux provinces de recourir de manière préventive à la disposition de dérogation, la Cour suprême imposerait une limite fondamentale à la souveraineté des provinces dans leurs champs de compétence. C’est ainsi que le constitutionnaliste Guillaume Rousseau qualifie la proposition de M. Carney de « radicale ». Une loi québécoise « pourrait être suspendue pendant six ou sept ans, en attendant un jugement de la Cour suprême, et ce, même si cette loi vise à régler un problème immédiat », a écrit Me Rousseau dans une chronique publiée cette semaine dans Le Journal de Montréal.

Professeur à l’Université de Sherbrooke, Me Rousseau a été nommé le mois dernier coprésident du nouveau Comité d’étude sur le respect des principes de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État sur les influences religieuses par le gouvernement caquiste. C’est un fervent défenseur de la souveraineté parlementaire du Québec. Il n’en demeure pas moins qu’il soulève une question importante sur la pertinence de la disposition de dérogation si on interdit son utilisation préventive — surtout au Québec, où la suspension d’une loi linguistique pendant plusieurs années (en attendant que la Cour suprême détermine son sort) pourrait avoir une incidence non négligeable sur le déclin du français.

« Nous sommes le parti de la Charte, et nous allons intervenir à la Cour suprême dans les cas qui [pourraient] venir », a déclaré le chef libéral la semaine dernière lorsqu’il a été interrogé pour la première fois sur la loi 96. Qu’on se le tienne pour dit : le Québec a beau être « incroyable » aux yeux de M. Carney, il n’a pas l’intention de le laisser faire.

Source: Le parti de la Charte

… When asked if his government intended to intervene before the Supreme Court of Canada in the event that the law was before the highest court in the country, Mr. Carney answered in the affirmative. “My government is uncomfortable with the [preventive] use of the ‘notwithstanding clause’,” he said about the exemption provision enshrined in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. “The issue is [to know if] we have rights here in Canada or not. A right is a right. If we use the “notwithstanding clause” too often in a [preventive] way, we say that we do not have a charter of rights here in Canada. This is a question for the Supreme Court. It’s not more complicated than that. ”

However, the Supreme Court is already preparing to examine the issue of the preventive recourse to the derogation provision in the file of the Act respecting the secularism of the Quebec State, Bill 21. This case will be heard long before any challenge to Bill 96 can come before the highest court in the country.

If he opposes only the preventive use of this provision, why does Mr. Does Carney wish to intervene in the file of Bill 96 if the matter must, in all likelihood, be settled even before the Supreme Court agrees to examine this legislative text? Would the Liberal leader have rather jumped at the opportunity to vote on Bill 96 in order to send a signal stating that he intends to defend Quebec’s English-speaking minority? Only he knows.

What is clear, however, is that a federal government led by Mark Carney would seek to eliminate the ability of provincial governments to use the waiver provision beforehand. It’s not a detail. The time between the adoption of a provincial law and the time when the Supreme Court determines whether it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights can extend over several years. Law 21 was adopted in 2019, and we still do not know what the highest court in the country thinks of it.

By prohibiting the provinces from making preventive use of the waiver provision, the Supreme Court would impose a fundamental limit on the sovereignty of the provinces in their fields of jurisdiction. This is how the constitutionalist Guillaume Rousseau describes the proposal of Mr. Carney of “radical”. A Quebec law “could be suspended for six or seven years, pending a Supreme Court judgment, even if this law aims to solve an immediate problem,” wrote Me Rousseau in a column published this week in Le Journal de Montréal.

Professor at the Université de Sherbrooke, Me Rousseau was appointed last month as co-chair of the new Study Committee on Respect for the Principles of the Act on the Secularism of the State on Religious Influences by the Caquist Government. He is a fervent defender of Quebec’s parliamentary sovereignty. Nevertheless, it raises an important question about the relevance of the derogation provision if its preventive use is prohibited — especially in Quebec, where the suspension of a language law for several years (pending the Supreme Court’s fate) could have a significant impact on the decline of French.

“We are the Charter party, and we will intervene in the Supreme Court in cases that [may] come,” the Liberal leader said last week when he was first asked about Bill 96. Let’s take it for said: Quebec may be “incredible” in the eyes of Mr. Carney, he has no intention of letting him do it.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Khan: Gender-equality rights, it turns out, aren’t safe from the notwithstanding clause

2024/03/05 Leave a comment

Of note:

… Perhaps the most jarring analysis is the Court’s dismissal of arguments by the bill’s opponents based on section 28, which enshrines gender-equality rights in the Charter. That argument makes the point that Bill 21 disproportionately restricts the freedom of religion and expression of Muslim women compared to men. The notwithstanding clause cannot be used to shield laws that discriminate between women and men – i.e., it cannot override section 28.

In fact, during the drafting of the Charter, Canadian women demanded the exclusion of section 28 from the notwithstanding clause. They had the foresight to ensure that gender-equality rights could not be denied by the potential whims of future governments.

But Quebec’s appeals court took great pains to explain that section 28 is, in fact, included in the notwithstanding clause. How? Well, by actually being included in each of the rights enshrined in sections 2 and 7 to 15, and thus having no stand-alone value in of itself.

For example, the Court considered a hypothetical law that gives police the power to detain and search all women unaccompanied by a male in public between midnight and 5 a.m. This violates sections 8 (security against unreasonable search) and 9 (no arbitrary detention). The Court argues that if the notwithstanding clause was invoked to shield the law, section 28 cannot be used to declare the law unconstitutional on the basis of gender inequality, since its only value lies in its association with existing rights – not rights that have been suspended.

The Court’s logic reminds me of the following imperfect analogy: it’s the pre-1960s era, section 28 is an unmarried woman, and her only value is through her association with a man, say a father, a brother, a husband, a son (any one of sections 2 and 7-15). Where no such man exists, she has no real inherent value of her own.

The Court’s logic is also dangerous, as it means there is no real protection for women against discriminatory laws if a legislature pre-emptively invokes the notwithstanding clause. Her personal agency and equal opportunity can be taken away at the behest of a hostile legislature. Just ask Muslim women in Quebec.

Source: Gender-equality rights, it turns out, aren’t safe from the notwithstanding clause

Filed under gender, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Dodek: It’s time for the Supreme Court, and the federal government, to stand up for the Charter

2023/01/06 Leave a comment

Valid critique:

The Liberals used to be the party of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, they risk being the party that leads to the Charter’s decline.

Over the past five years, the political taboo over the use of the notwithstanding clause, which allows governments to override some Charter rights, has been shattered across Canada. This occurred not under former prime minister Stephen Harper, a Conservative who was the favourite lightning rod of Liberal Charter enthusiasts, but under the current Liberal stewardship of Mr. Trudeau.

When Ontario Premier Doug Ford threatened to use the notwithstanding clause in the fall of 2018, as part of a plan to shrink the size of the Toronto City Council in the midst of the provincial election, the Prime Minister did nothing. (Ultimately, Mr. Ford did not use the clause in that instance.)

The next year, Quebec Premier François Legault went ahead with using the notwithstanding clause to insulate Bill 21, which bans certain provincial government employees from wearing religious symbols at work. In 2021, Mr. Ford also used the clause for a law limiting third-party election spending. In both cases, Mr. Trudeau again did nothing.

Earlier this year, the Quebec government used the notwithstanding clause once more, this time to push through Bill 96, its new language law. Yet again, the Prime Minister took no action, though he has said that the federal government would intervene in a legal challenge to Bill 21 at the Supreme Court of Canada.

“This is a matter that matters to all Canadians, regardless of which part of the country they live in,” Mr. Trudeau said in May, when asked if Ottawa would involve itself in the Bill 21 challenge. “This government will continue to be here to defend people’s fundamental rights and freedoms.”

I doubt those whose rights have been threatened or stripped away by legislation in Quebec and Ontario find much comfort in the Prime Minister’s vague and banal words. They won’t help the Muslim women in Quebec who have lost their jobs because they wear a hijabas a declaration of their faith. They won’t help non-native French speakers who are barred from speaking another language at work.

While the Ontario government pledged to repeal its most recent use of the clause (as part of Bill 28, which made it illegal for unionized education workers to go on strike), Canadians should still be concerned about the increased use of this clause by provincial governments.

Mr. Trudeau could act right now if he wanted to. If he has the political courage to do so, the Prime Minister could initiate a reference to the Supreme Court challenging the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause in Quebec and Ontario. He could send some of the best legal talent in the country from the Department of Justice down the street to the high court to stand up for the minority rights of Canadians.

Crucially, Ottawa could argue that the Supreme Court should revisit its 1988 Ford v. Quebec (Attorney-General) decision, which gave governments the carte-blanche ability to use the notwithstanding clause.

Supreme Court decisions are not cast in stone. Much has changed in the three decades since it first ruled on the use of the notwithstanding clause, which authorized its use both in reaction to court decisions striking down laws as violations of the Charter, as well as its pre-emptive use in advance of any such legal challenges.

The rights and provisions set out in the Charter do not define themselves. It is the task of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to interpret its contents. The political leaders who debated and enacted the Charter knew full well that they would be giving this awesome responsibility to the courts.

Between 1980 and 1981, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons spent more than 150 hours hearing from Canadians about the draft Charter. The legislators on this committee were warned that the enactment of a constitutionally-entrenched bill of rights such as the Charter would make the courts responsible for its interpretation.

The 1988 Ford decision dates to the early years of Charter interpretation. It is part of the first generation of Charter cases. The high court’s interpretation of Charter rights ebbs and flows over time.

A favourite metaphor among Canadian constitutional lawyers and academics is the idea that our Constitution is a “living tree” – one that is capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. Sometimes, the Constitution needs to be pruned back. In other cases, the courts or governments go too far – in recent years, both have done so on sanctioning and using the notwithstanding clause.

The time is ripe for Canada’s highest court to revisit its 34-year-old decision. It is also long overdue for some strong federal leadership to defend the Charter rights of Canadians.

Adam Dodek is a law professor at the University of Ottawa and author of the book, The Canadian Constitution.

Source: It’s time for the Supreme Court, and the federal government, to stand up for the Charter

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

Khan: I thought the Charter protected Canadians’ fundamental rights, but I was wrong

2022/06/24 Leave a comment

Another good column by Sheema Khan:

Like you, there have been many times I have felt proud to be Canadian. For example, our government’s principled refusal to join the immoral invasion of Iraq. Attending citizenship ceremonies, where new Canadians remind us of the deeper meaning of citizenship. Being told by one of my Harvard professors that Canadian students were the best prepared – a testament to our excellent public education system. And of course, the 1995 Unity Rally in Montreal, on the eve of the Quebec referendum, where Canadians joined hands peacefully to express our heartfelt love for Canada and Quebec.

The contentment has been punctuated by instances of profound doubt, when I wonder what we really stand for. For example, the longstanding Canadian project to inflict cultural genocide on Indigenous communities. Just read the summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report to get a shocking glimpse into the depravity of our country’s official policy: Last year’s gut-wrenching announcements about the unmarked graves of Indigenous children on the grounds of former residential schools. And let’s not forget the complicity on the part of government agencies in the rendition of Maher Arar to torture in Syria.

Post 9/11, our courts served as a check on government overreach on basic civil liberties. I grew to love our Constitution, which replaced hockey as a central feature of my Canadian identity.

I am not a historian. Nor am I a lawyer. I am, simply, a Canadian citizen who cherishes our Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a safeguard for fundamental rights and freedoms.

Imagine, then, the gut-punch upon discovering that the highest law of the land – to which new citizens pledge allegiance – makes no such guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms whatsoever. All owing to the notwithstanding clause, which is enshrined in the Charter.

For years, I saw the “notwithstanding clause” as a polysyllabic legal term, bandied about by constitutional experts. I didn’t know what it meant. Mainstream media clarified it as a right, given to provincial and federal governments, to suspend Sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter. All of this still seemed abstract. Until it wasn’t, after reading those sections.

In a nutshell, the Charter grants governments the right to suspend basic individual freedoms that we all take for granted. Namely, freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression, as well as freedom of the press, peaceful assembly and freedom of association. We aren’t talking about emergency measures, nor reasonable limits that are justified in a democracy. No, we are talking about a constitution that makes it perfectly legal to suspend basic human rights, as a matter of governance.

It does not stop there.

A number of basic legal rights can be suspended. These include the right to life, liberty and security (barring some exceptions, such as the prison system); requirement of warrants for search and seizure; the right to be informed why one is being detained; the right to a lawyer upon arrest; the right against unlawful imprisonment; presumption of innocence until proven guilty; and the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The clause allows suspension of the right of every individual to be equal before, and under the law; and suspends the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, age or disability.

This needs to be spelled out: our Charter makes it perfectly legal to gut basic rights. There is no need for a coup, no need to politicize selection of judges, no need to gerrymander, no need to use a loophole. The potential for abuse is encoded into law. There is no other constitutional democracy that allows for the gutting of basic rights as a matter of governance.

Much has been written about the history of how the notwithstanding clause came to be: a compromise between federal and provincial powers; a balance between elected representatives and unelected judges. Yet, this does not explain how basic human rights were used as a bargaining chip, rendering our Charter of Rights and Freedoms hollow.

When it was introduced, the thought was that it would be rarely used. Some termed it the “nuclear button.” For decades, that was the case. However, within the past three years, it has been used twice by Quebec and once by Ontario. Quebec Bills 21 and 96 unequivocally suspend individual and legal rights of minorities. Conservative Party leadership candidates Jean Charest, Pierre Poilievre and Patrick Brown have promised to strike down the recent Supreme Court decision on sentencing, using the clause.

It’s time for each Canadian to engage in a conversation about who we are as a country, given that our Charter allows for cancellation of basic civil liberties.

Source: I thought the Charter protected Canadians’ fundamental rights, but I was wrong

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Judge suspends Quebec face-covering ban, says it appears to violate charter

2018/06/30 Leave a comment

Not a major surprise:

The portion of Quebec’s religious neutrality law that dictates when Quebecers must leave their faces uncovered in order to receive public services has been suspended for a second time, only days before it was slated to go into effect.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Marc-André Blanchard issued the ruling Thursday, handing another victory to civil liberties groups that argue the law discriminates against Muslim women who wear niqab​s or burkas.

Blanchard said Section 10, which pertains to face coverings, appears to be “a violation” of the Canadian and Quebec charters, which “provide for freedom of conscience and religion.”

The judge concluded that “irreparable harm will be caused to Muslim women” if the relevant section of the law had gone into effect on July 1.

He ordered Section 10 suspended until a challenge to the law is heard in court.

The same portion of the law was suspended in December.

In that ruling, another Quebec Superior Court justice ordered the provincial government to produce accommodation guidelines dictating how the restrictions on face coverings would work in practice.

Those guidelines are slated to go into effect July 1, but the sections on face coverings will now no longer apply.

The civil rights groups challenging the law argued the guidelines place a greater burden on the individuals affected.

“We’re very happy with the decision,” said Catherine McKenzie, who was part of the legal team that challenged the law’s constitutionality on behalf of Warda Naili, a Quebec woman who wears a niqab.

“This law has an important impact on women who cover their faces for religious reasons. Women were going to be potentially cut off from very basic services so it was important for us to ask for the law to be stayed again.”

‘Confusion and uncertainty’

In his ruling, Blanchard also noted there is still “confusion and uncertainty” about how the process will work.

The guidelines, released in May, state that exemptions to the law, previously known as Bill 62, can only be granted to individuals on religious grounds if the demand is serious, doesn’t violate the rights of others and doesn’t impose “undue hardships.”

The Quebec government left it up to individual public bodies, however, to decide how to handle accommodation requests, and requires each body to appoint an official to make those decisions.

The office of Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée, who has been the point person on the law, said it is analyzing the judgment and that it is still within the 30-day appeal period.

When the guidelines were announced in May, Vallée said each request needs to be taken in its own context.

“If a person wearing a burka or a niqab wants to make a request, that request will be processed,” said Vallée.

“It would be determined on a case by case [basis], following a request. Is this someone who has a sincere belief who is wearing this piece of clothing regularly, in their daily life, or if the request is being put forward with the aim of getting an advantage.”

Source: Judge suspends Quebec face-covering ban, says it appears to violate charter

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Judicial activism in Canada: Charter fights | The Economist

2014/07/09 Leave a comment

The Economist’s take on the judicial difficulties of the Government:

Yet the government itself, not meddling judges, may be more to blame. Edgar Schmidt, a former lawyer in the justice department, is suing the government for not subjecting proposed legislation to sufficiently rigorous scrutiny to see if it conforms to the constitution prior to presenting it to parliament. Simon Potter, a former head of the Canadian Bar Association, cited Mr Schmidt’s points in a speech to the association last month in which he accused the government of not doing enough to defend the charter and of fostering disrespect for the judiciary. If Mr Schmidt’s allegations are correct, says Mr Potter, “the executive has decided to take as many freedoms away from us as possible, rather than as few as possible”. He is dismayed that there is more legislation in the pipeline that looks ripe for charter challenges.

One step this government is not prepared to take is to revoke the charter itself. It would involve lengthy, arduous and potentially inconclusive constitutional negotiations with the provinces. More importantly, even the government’s own surveys show the charter is hugely popular with the majority of Canadians. When it asked Canadians to suggest the people and feats they want celebrated in 2017, the country’s 150th birthday, Medicare, peacekeeping and the charter of rights and freedoms were the top three accomplishments. Pierre Trudeau, the former Liberal prime minister who brought in the charter, was the most inspiring Canadian.

Judicial activism in Canada: Charter fights | The Economist.

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Un grand pas vers l’égalité homme-femme | Le Devoir

2014/02/03 Leave a comment

Former Supreme Court judge Claire L’Heureux-Dubé supports the Charter, another reflection of how embedded the opposition to any forms of religious expression, given the history of Catholic domination of Quebec and the transformation into a largely secular society in the 60s:

Dénonçant les « diktats de la religion », Mme L’Heureux-Dubé tentera de dissuader les élus d’opposition de se rallier à la position défendue par le Barreau du Québec et la Commission des droits de la personne. À ses yeux, ces deux organismes proposent à l’État de confier un « choix de société » au « gouvernement des tribunaux ». « Le rôle des tribunaux n’est pas de gouverner ni d’entraver les choix démocratiques que se donne une société, mais plutôt de réprimer les abus, s’il y en a, au regard des droits fondamentaux que protègent les chartes », affirme Mme L’Heureux-Dubé qui a siégé au plus haut tribunal du pays de 1987 à 2002.

Un grand pas vers l’égalité homme-femme | Le Devoir.

Somewhat amusing that the leaders of Quebec’s student movement against tuition increases, that led to widespread protest again the Charest government in 2012, now say youth are intimidated by the Charter debate. Come on, this is more of a choice! If I recall the polls correctly, young Quebecers (like all young Canadians) are more relaxed about multiculturalism/interculturalism than older citizens.

«Depuis le début, il y a eu toute une série de sorties publiques, comme celles de Guy Rocher et Jeannette Bertrand. Et ils ont tout à fait le droit. Mais ce sont des gens d’un certain âge qui ont utilisé leur expérience pour donner beaucoup de crédibilité à leurs propos et pour donner l’impression aux jeunes que leur opinion l’était moins», fait remarquer Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, ex-porte-parole de la CLASSE. «C’est un sophisme d’autorité».

Cet automne, lors de son intervention sur la charte au Mégaphone de l’ONF, au Quartier des spectacles, des baby-boomers lui avaient fait la morale lors de la période de discussion. «Je m’étais fait dire “nous les baby-boomers, on a vécu la Révolution tranquille, on sait de quoi on parle et vous, vous n’êtes pas au courant. Vous devez nous écouter.”», note M. Nadeau-Dubois. «Les jeunes sont intimidés. Personne n’essaie de les faire taire volontairement, mais c’est l’impression que ça donne. Et ce n’est pas très invitant.»

Charte de la laïcité : les jeunes intimidés par le débat

Filed under Charte des valeurs québécoise, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

When Tim’s is more popular than the Queen, how to tell Canada’s story? – The Globe and Mail

2014/01/07 Leave a comment

Jack Jedwab of the Association of Canadian Studies on recent polling data on elements of the national narrative. Not surprisingly, the Charter still holds first place, probably to the chagrin of the government which has downplayed the Charter and given greater prominence to the Monarchy. In Delacourt’s Shopping for Votes, there is a good section on how Tim Horton advertising captures citizenship better than the government (here).

But the broader challenge remains:

In a regionally diverse and demographically pluralist country like Canada it is no simple task to establish an official or common narrative. It is essential to promote ongoing discussion and debate about the Canadian story that highlights its historic achievements and past failings. That many of us arrive at different conclusions about the meaning of our shared past is the sign of a healthy democracy far more so than a problem for societal cohesion. As we approach the 150th anniversary of Canada we should seize the opportunity to embark upon a national conversation about the nation’s past so as to enhance collective knowledge about ourselves.

When Tim’s is more popular than the Queen, how to tell Canada’s story? – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts