JUST Committee Report

Dissenting Opinion of the Bloc Québécois

The Bloc Québécois salutes the members of the Committee and the staff of the Library of Parliament for their professionalism and the work they accomplished during this study, and thanks all the witnesses and citizens who contributed to the debate and reflections, without which this study would not have been possible.

In accordance with the motion of March 21, 2024, the committee agreed that it would conduct two studies, one on Islamophobia and the other on anti-Semitism. In the interests of fairness, and given the social climate exacerbated by the war between the State of Israel and Hamas and ongoing tensions on campus, the committee agreed to conduct the two studies concurrently. The Bloc Québécois fully supported these studies. We hereby present a dissenting opinion, not to deny the importance or magnitude of hate events, but to draw the attention of all parliamentarians to the limits of federal power, Quebec's specific characteristics with regards to living together, and the reasons for our opposition to certain recommendations.

The Constitutional Order of 1867

The Canadian federation is based on two distinct levels of government. On one hand, the federal government, and on the other, the provinces and the Quebec nation. Under sections 91 to 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867, each level has its own exclusive areas of jurisdiction. As the fight against racism is not the subject of any specific provision in the 1867 Act, actions taken to fight racism must be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the constitutional text.

Section 93 gives Quebec and the provinces the power to enact laws relating to education. Since education plays a decisive role in the fight against intolerance, any strategy to combat racism is the responsibility of the Quebec government.

Also, although immigration is a shared jurisdiction, the Canada-Quebec Accord Relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens stipulates that reception and linguistic and cultural integration must be provided by Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that the federal government has a responsibility in the fight against racism. Its legislative authority over Criminal Law enables him to act against hate speech and hateful acts. To this end, the Bloc Québécois has proposed legislative measures to combat hate crimes more effectively.

Furthermore, its jurisdiction over telecommunications, which includes online communication, gives it the latitude to address a crucial aspect of racism: online hatred.

The Bloc Québécois also recognizes that the Canadian government, as Canada's largest employer, has a duty to promote discrimination-free workplaces. Therefore, he has a responsibility to intervene in workplaces under its jurisdiction.

Principled Position of the Bloc Québécois

The Bloc Québécois is a party deeply attached to democratic values and institutions. Our independence project is democratic, inclusive, and respectful of human rights and freedoms. Our political action is guided by humanist principles and a constant concern for the value, dignity, and autonomy of individuals. At every opportunity, and as often as necessary, we denounce all forms of hate speech and hate crimes in the strongest possible way.

The rise in anti-Semitism voiced by the targeted individuals and communities, attested to by official statistics and reported by the media, was ample justification for the decision of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to undertake the present study. The first chapter of this report attest that the current situation, and the distinct form of hatred directed at the Jewish population or people of the Jewish faith, calls for a carefully tailored response.

While the Committee's inquiry, in particular the testimonies and the numerous briefs submitted, informs parliamentarians, and suggests useful and relevant courses of action, the Bloc Québécois feels that the recommendations to the House and to the government that emerge do not constitute “a carefully tailored response.”

The Bloc Québécois believes that it is unnecessary and counter-productive for parliamentarians to issue recommendations calling for public action in areas that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. This practice, which is becoming increasingly common in House of Commons committees, is even more regrettable when the public issues in question are of the utmost importance, as is the case with the protection of fundamental rights and the fight against discrimination, hatred, and violence. These problems call for an appropriate public response, one that is both realistic and effective.

Unfortunately, it has become common practice in the House to clumsily add the phrase “respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces” or a similar expression, when we know that the proposal we are making does not respect provincial jurisdictions. This practice reveals either a less-than-honourable attitude on the part of parliamentarians towards the Constitution and the very foundations of Canadian federalism, betraying a penchant for the development of a centralized and eventually unitary state, or an admission of announced failure, or both. The Bloc Québécois does not subscribe to this approach, which does no credit to the institution and shows a lack of consideration for the public, who have a right to expect public authorities to provide appropriate and consistent solutions to real problems, especially when citizens exercise their democratic rights by participating in the work of the House.

As Quebec independentists active on the federal political scene, we fully understand the dissatisfaction that may be felt with the fundamentally dysfunctional nature of the Canadian federal system. But this doesn't change the fact, fundamental to the development of a public policy, that the success of such policy requires adequate consideration of the institutional environment and social reality in which it is embedded and will be deployed.

Accordingly, the Bloc Québécois supports most of the recommendations that would enable the federal government to improve its practices and policies, mobilize the public apparatus in the fight against discrimination and hatred, and amend legislation, notably the Criminal Code, to better protect individuals and communities against heinous crimes and acts.

The Bloc Québécois supported and continues to support, the definition of anti-Semitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), specifying that the latter must in no way be interpreted as a restriction on legitimate criticism of the State of Israel or as a restriction on freedom of expression. The definition specifies that “criticism of Israel comparable to that expressed against other countries cannot be qualified as anti-Semitic.”

To these recommendations, we propose to add the Bloc Québécois bill to eliminate the religious exception of the Criminal Code criminalizing hate speech or incitement to violence. The critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, as well as Human Rights, the MP for Lac-Saint-Jean, introduced bill C-373, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (promoting hatred or anti-Semitism). This enactment amends the Criminal Code to eliminate as a defence against wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism the fact that a person, in good faith, expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. Many witnesses have welcomed this bill, and the Bloc Québécois believes that it should have been one of the recommendations of this report.

We are also opposed to recommendations that suggest federal intervention in Quebec's exclusive jurisdictions, particularly in the field of education. It is unacceptable that the federal government should invent for itself rights of oversight over the administration of educational establishments, particularly in terms of hiring and curriculum content. The support of federal parliamentarians for these worrying proposals deserves to be reported and denounced.

It is certainly important to recognize that expressions of anti-Jewish hatred and acts of hatred exist in many spheres of society, just as recent manifestations of anti-Semitism have notably taken place on some university campuses. On the other hand, it is not desirable for the federal government to substitute itself to other competent authorities.

In this respect, the report seems to overlook over an important fact: Quebec has its own policies for combating discrimination, defending, and promoting rights, and the specific issue of anti-Semitism is also the focus of attention of the Quebec nation's elected representatives in the Quebec Parliament. The Quebec government is, and must remain, in charge of the fight against racism in Quebec.

On the specific subject of the fight against anti-Semitism, the Bloc Québécois supports the Quebec government's commitment. On May 26, 2021, the members of Quebec's National Assembly unanimously denounced the threats, violence, and attacks against Quebecers of the Jewish faith. The National Assembly also reiterated the need to maintain a healthy, democratic debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and recalled that violence against anyone is intolerable at any time.

Since then, the National Assembly has paid tribute to the victims of the terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, and to those of the war between Israel and Hamas. It has reaffirmed its commitment by denouncing the hateful anti-Semitic acts committed in Montreal and condemning the attacks on places belonging to Jewish, Arab, or Muslim communities, particularly the violent attacks on the Azrieli Talmud Torah school, the Yeshiva Gedola school, the Beth Tikvah congregation synagogue and the Federation CJA building.

The Bloc Québécois endorses these positions of the National Assembly and calls on the federal government to circumscribe its actions while respecting Quebec policies and laws.

The subject being studied by the Committee is important to both the Canadian and Quebec nations. However, it is important to establish that our two nations maintain parallel and distinct democratic conversations on the aspects of the question that are fundamental to them, i.e. those that deal with social cohesion and what is commonly referred to as “vivre-ensemble” (living together).

Living together, accommodating societal diversity, intercultural dialogue, cultural and linguistic sovereignty, the integration of immigrants, the secular nature of the State, the protection and promotion of rights, and the fight against discrimination are all fundamental issues for the Quebec nation.

As set out in the Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the people and State of Québec, the State of Québec is sovereign in its own areas of jurisdiction. The National Assembly is made up of MNAs elected by universal suffrage by the Québec people, and derives its legitimacy from these people, for whom it is the sole legislative body. All matters relating to the future of the Québec people fall within the rights and prerogatives of the National Assembly.

On the thirtieth anniversary of the constitutional coup de force, the National Assembly unanimously and formally reaffirmed that it had never adhered to the Constitution Act of 1982, which diminished Québec's powers and rights without its consent, and that it remains unacceptable to Québec.

In Quebec, it is the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that establishes and protects fundamental rights. Among other things, the Charter protects every human being's right to dignity and equality.  It prohibits any discrimination based on ethnic or national origin, or skin colour.

The Quebec Charter also states that “Human rights and freedoms are exercised with respect for democratic values, the secular nature of the State, the importance of protecting the French language, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Quebec”.

Consequently, the Federal Parliament must refrain from legislating on matters that are fundamental to the Quebec people and recognized by the Canadian constitution.

If Canada is to maintain harmonious relations with the Quebec nation, its elected representatives must recognize Quebec's resolute commitment to human rights and freedoms, agree that Quebec has not acceded to the Constitution Act, 1982, and then exercise a practice of asymmetrical federalism based on recognition, by the House of Commons, of the Quebec nation.

This recognition should take the form of federal legislation affirming that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply to Quebec, given that Quebecers form a nation and therefore have all the tools they need to define their identity, affirm pluralism, and protect their common values.

The Bloc Québécois has tabled such legislation in the House of Commons on several occasions. The most recent opportunity came with the introduction of Bill C-226, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, during the 43rd Parliament. Unfortunately, on Wednesday, June 9, 2021, parliamentarians from all Canadian parties, including their federalist representatives for Quebec, voted against this Bloc Québécois proposal.

In conclusion, federal anti-discrimination policy would not only be more effective if it took better account of the respective responsibilities of the various public authorities involved, it could also become more coherent, if it recognized Canada's plurinational character and agreed to deploy a territorially differentiated policy for Quebec.

Additional considerations

Considering the above remarks, the Bloc Québécois opposes many of the recommendations contained in the Report on Antisemitism of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The Bloc Québécois rejects recommendations 1, 2, 6 and 8 of the Report on Anti-Semitism, as they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces in matters of education, as set out in section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Whatever its objective, the federal government should never interfere in teaching programs or in the administration of education, as this is clearly unconstitutional. No government is better placed than that of Quebec and the other Canadian provinces to develop effective school programs for the benefit of their citizens.

The Bloc Québécois is also opposed to Recommendation 10, as it is a proposal to criminalize behaviour without any data to support its effectiveness. Numerous witnesses told the Committee that inadequate application of the Criminal Code creates fertile ground for hatred and racism (paragraphs 101 to 103 of the Committee's Report). In other words, it is not because of a lack of legislative tools that anti-Semitism is not combated with sufficient effectiveness, but rather because of a misuse of existing provisions.

Following this logic, it seems inappropriate to add a new section to the Criminal Code aimed at criminalizing certain expressions and gestures in a specific area around schools and places of worship. Any infringement of freedom of expression must be carefully considered and justified, which was clearly not the case here.

Recommendation 15 is also problematic for a similar reason. Removing the requirement to obtain the consent of the Attorney General to initiate a hate speech prosecution (s. 319 Cr.C.) could have the effect of multiplying the number of prosecutions under this section, by speeding up the judicial process. However, as indicated above, the Bloc Québécois believes that any infringement of freedom of expression must be carefully thought out and justified, and that prior authorization from the prosecutor is essential. We fail to see how recommendation 15 would have a beneficial effect in the fight against anti-Semitism.