Quebec's secular laws and new constitutional proposals under attack by The Globe & Mail

Quebec's secular laws and new constitutional proposals under attack by The Globe & Mail

Introduction

The Globe and Mail, in a carefully-written October 29, 2025 editorial ($ required) entitled The rights of Quebeckers aren’t a political plaything by an unknown number of anonymous persons described as The editorial board, has come out blasting against Quebec's secular (laicité) laws, but especially against the bill proposing measures for inclusion in Quebec's constitution recently tabled in Quebec's national assembly. It ominously describes the initiatives as something foreboding. Predictably the usual gang of suspects, notably the Quebec anglo lobby group Quebec Community Group Network or QCGN (now Talq), were quick to come out in support of the editorial.

The editorial uses the Canadian charter as the litmus test for what are to be considered as soaring declarations of the inalienable rights of humanity that deserve its support. Is that appropriate, and is it even true? And is the Globe being fair and consistent in its evaluation?

We don't think so. Please read our comments on key extracts from the editorial to understand why.

Politics and constitutions are bad, but only sometimes

G&M: fundamental human rights in Canada’s Constitution...a document that will divide people along politically drawn lines. The Act Respecting the Laicity of the State violates the fundamental rights mentioned at the top of this editorial.

Comment: There is life outside Canada's Charter. Canada was a democracy before the Charter. Different fundamental human rights can and do exist outside of Canada's constitution, which itself was fundamentally rejigged in 1982 without the consent of Quebec. The 1982 constitution itself was, to use the Globe terminology,a political document and a playthings of politicians. It was not approved by referendum. It was adopted by Canada's then colonial power, the United Kingdom, at the sole request of the federal parliament. It was never consented to by any provincial legislature, was explicitly voted against by the Quebec national assembly, and 43 years later, has still not been agreed to by Quebec. One should not equate human rights simply with those defined by Canada’s 1982 Charter and Constitution, a deeply flawed document.

Language rights are bad, but only sometimes

G&M: Quebeckers clearly want their government to defend their language and culture. But universal human rights of equality and liberty are not some confection of English Canada.

Comment: Eh, actually, yes, they were and are. The affirmation in the Charter preamble that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God is a Canadian invention. The supreme court itself recognized that the key language provision inserted in the Charter by Trudeau the elder to thwart those nasty separatists then in power, section 23, which confers education rights on English speaking persons in Quebec, was NOT derived from international law, but was a quite peculiar Canadian (read by Frank R Scott + English ROC) concoction.

Section 23 of the Charter is not, like other provisions in that constitutional document, of the kind generally found in such charters and declarations of fundamental rights. It is not a codification of essential, pre-existing and more or less universal rights that are being confirmed and perhaps clarified, extended or amended, and which, most importantly, are being given a new primacy and inviolability by their entrenchment in the supreme law of the land. The special provisions of s. 23 of the Charter make it a unique set of constitutional provisions, quite peculiar to Canada.
Canada. P.G. (Qué.) c. Quebec Protestant School Boards 1984 2 RCS 66

Collective rights are bad, but only sometimes

G&M: the proposed constitution is a “law of laws” that puts the collective rights of the province’s secular French-speaking majority above all others. Most constitutions are designed to protect the individual from the state, but Quebec’s proposed constitution does the opposite.

Comment: Eh, actually, the Canadian constitution does the same thing. Section 23 of the Charter adopted in 1982 confers collective rights on English speaking persons in Quebec (section 93 of the 1867 constitution also conferred collective rights on Quebec protestants). This presumably was and is not a problem for the Globe editorial board. So the collective rights concern is only when they are used to protect the french language. This is a very Toronto-centric viewpoint, not surprising given the marginal importance of french in Toronto. But Quebecers are not playing politics when they collectively do not agree with the Globe editorial board on their perceived necessity and wisdom of protecting french.

Unilateral judicial appointments are bad, but only sometimes

G&M: the proposed constitutional commission is a lapdog “constitutional commission” of appointed protectors of Quebec’s legally defined fundamental characteristics.

Comment: The Meech lake accord had provisions to end the federal monopoly on naming judges who rule over the constitution. Meech lake was supported by the federal parliament, and also had the provincial legislative support that the 1982 patriation never did. The federal government has never acted to correct this monopoly. Here is my understanding of the Globe editorial board position. When the federal government, alone, names those judges, there is no problem that needs fixing. When Quebec does the same, it becomes a lapdog procedure. Deux poids, deux mesures. The constitutional commission proposal is not the invention of the century, it should be criticized on its merits, not disparaged on an inconsistent basis.

Conclusion

The G & M editorial on Quebec's laicité laws and constitutional proposals can be debated on its merits. The authors of the editorial are undoubtedly sound representatives of Toronto's finest citizens. We would have preferred knowing who are these power behind the throne persons who actually wrote it. We believe it is wrong on a number of important issues, most notably for its lack of consistency (sometimes drafting by committee does this). It sometimes seems to fall into the we good, you bad, category. But more fundamentally it reads like a political statement against collective actions to protect french in Quebec and the rights of Quebec students and parents to a secular education. Remember: even Trudeau the elder blinked and granted partial collective protection to french in Quebec in the 1982 constitution (see section 59) . All of this does not disqualify the editorial from careful consideration, but criticizing Quebec alone for playing politics is a bit rich.

Laicité PL-21 Charte Constitution Ségrégation Anglophones ROC Clause  dérogatoire The rights of Quebeckers aren’t a political plaything 29 10  2025 Editorial Board The Globe and Mail.docx.