Lametti Question | Press

It may seem like a simple procedural thing, but it’s so much more than that. The question is whether the reference to a defamatory provision in a law will end all negotiations and therefore prevent any challenge or consideration by the courts.

The degrading provision is an important compromise of the patriotism of the 1982 Constitution. But the question of what form of insult should be used is not mentioned.

In 1988, the Supreme Court indicated that despite the Charter of Rights, the sole obligation was to state in law that it was applied through contempt.

But sometimes the court wants to clarify its previous decisions. This is what Mr. Lametti wanted to ask him. Paul Martin, as we have sometimes heard from Liberal Party representatives during the 2006 election campaign, did not question the relevance of this provision – he promised to repeal it – but to establish a policy that would allow for debate. The same is discussed here.

For the Legalt government, the humiliation is not only to keep the law away from unfavorable decision by the courts, but also to prevent legal debate.

This is not the intention of those involved in the patriarchy of the Constitution. For example, Saskatchewan NDP Premier Alan Blake said at the time: “In many key areas, Parliament [fédéral] And legislatures can override a court decision that violates the basic social institutions of a province. Clearly, in his mind, there was no need to resort to anyway so the courts should intervene after the decision and not before.

On the one hand, because the right to challenge a law before a court is a fundamental right recognized by the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the Canadian Charter.

On the other hand, having a dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature can be beneficial to society and compromises can be found that allow the rights of everyone to be restored.

The best example is the case of trade signs, which was one of the first challenges to Bill 101. A decade passed between the passage of Bill 101 and the Ford judgment of the Supreme Court in 1988.

There has been a decade of public debate and two lower court decisions. In the Supreme Court, the court has a solution to propose, namely the rule of apparent French dominance.

The government of Boraussa initially rejected the compromise and passed Bill 178, although it resorted to it.

After the judgment of the courts, if the elected authorities are convinced that they are right, they can impose their opinion very legally, thanks to the insulting provision. This proves that we are not in a “government of judges”.

But back to Bill 101 and to the government of Boursa. The duration of the humiliation was limited to five years, ending in 1993. The National Assembly then lifted the ban on Anglophone signals and amended the law to make it clear that the French “Supreme Court clearly presupposes priming. There is no overriding provision in this Act.”

It may be a long turning point, but in the end, a solution that respects everyone’s rights wins. After the courts have given their verdict. Not before.

The Legal government banned Act 21 on Secularism and Act 96 on language prohibiting discussion on controversial issues.

And, by his attitude, Prime Minister Legalt is telling himself that he alone is right and that any discussion is not only useless, there should be no discussion at all.

When Bill 21 was passed on secularism, it came as no surprise that the Legal government passed the bill not only with a humiliating provision – for the first time in its history – without significant amendments to the Quebec Charter of Rights and Liberation. The consensus of the National Assembly and the conclusion of parliamentary debates.

When we display a very general attitude towards courts and fundamental rights, we should not be surprised to find that someone wants to recognize the use of a derogatory provision. By making sure to intervene instead of blocking them after negotiations.