2 controversial Quebec bills could be challenged at United Nations

A human rights lawyer believes the Quebec government’s use of the notwithstanding clause, most recently invoked to pass two controversial bills, could be challenged beyond the Supreme Court of Canada.

Pearl Eliadis says complaints against Quebec’s Bill 21 and Bill 96 could be filed with the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Eliadis, who is also a McGill University professor, made those comments at a public forum on the Canadian Constitution’s notwithstanding clause last month.

“That is only available when the court of last resort, which is the Supreme Court, has turned it down,” Eliadis explained to CityNews.

“It provides us with the ability to get the UN committee’s view on whether or not Canada is complying with its international obligations.”

Eliadis specifies the United Nations Human Rights Committee could only provide “a view,” and “not a binding decision.”

“But Canadian governments in the past have taken these views seriously,” she said.

‘Public embarrassment for Canada’

Eric Maldoff, a Montreal lawyer and former president of Alliance Quebec, says going to the United Nations “would be a public embarrassment for Canada.”

“I don’t think the United Nations can actually sanction Canada,” he said. “They might be able to pass resolutions that would be unpleasant and have unpleasant political consequences for Canada. It certainly would hold Canada up as not being a model of democratic fundamental rights and freedoms.”

The notwithstanding clause can be invoked by Canada’s Parliament as well as provincial and territorial legislatures to pass laws that may violate certain Charter rights.

“Leaving aside the specifics of Bill 21 and 96, the notwithstanding clause in general does not, in my view, comply with our international obligations and the way in which the treaty body is prepared and drafted,” Eliadis said.

Bill 96 is Quebec’s 2022 overhaul of its French-language law. It’s led to enhanced rules on workplace francization thresholds, consumer dealings, stronger OQLF powers, signage and product labelling, among others.

Bill 21, the province’s secularism law, imposed a religious symbols ban on public employees deemed to be in positions of authority, including teachers, judges and police officers.

In a statement to CityNews, the CAQ government would not say why it is using the notwithstanding clause for Bills 21 and 96 because they are before the courts, but explained the notwithstanding clause is a way to defend the prerogatives or rights of the National Assembly of Quebec within Canada.

“Both Bills 96 and 21 violate the right to equality for religious women, for people of faith who wear visible religious signs,” Eliadis said. “They violate the rights of the minority, the linguistic minority in Quebec, of course, which is the Anglophone minority.

“Because of the way the notwithstanding clause works, they also violate things like legal rights, the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to legal counsel, the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment, and importantly, for Bill 96, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.”