How Quebec’s back-to-school bill fails - Macleans.ca
 

How Quebec’s back-to-school bill fails

Political scientist Emmett Macfarlane weighs in


 

Ryan Remiorz/CP

If you’ve listened to some of the commentary about Bill 78, emergency legislation purportedly designed to deal with the out-of-control student protests in Quebec, you’d assume the government has thrown a match onto a powder keg.

Some may have hoped that in the midst of its massive, ongoing failure to deal with the protests these past few months, the Charest government might finally turn the corner by passing a law to settle things down. This was sadly – though somehow not surprisingly – optimistic. Apparently no one knows how to sour a lemon like Jean Charest.

Legal experts and critics have pounced on the bill to declare, with all the subtlety of a window-smashing tuition-phobe, that it represents “mass repression” and constitutes “the worst law since the War Measures Act.” One student leader declared the bill “an act of war.” Such rhetoric is about as helpful as smoke bombs in a metro station.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some obvious Charter of Rights problems with this law. One of the worst provisions, which would have treated as guilty anyone who by “omission” or “encouragement” helps or induces a person to contravene elements of the bill, has reportedly been removed.

Another section requires anyone organizing a demonstration of more than 10 people (now amended to more than 50) in a “venue accessible to the public” to report the date, time, duration, and venue to the police at least eight hours ahead of time.

As Andrew Coyne has pointed out on Twitter, many other jurisdictions in the rest of Canada, the United States and Europe have similar reporting requirements. But these often apply to events like planned marches on public streets. Canadian courts are unlikely to find the very broad language here acceptable. Not all public demonstrations are public disruptions, nor are all publicly accessible spaces equal: it may be a reasonable restriction on freedom of assembly to require reporting and impose other limits on street protests. Imposing the same limits on demonstrations in parks or empty fields may not meet the threshold of reasonableness.

Many commentators have also expressed displeasure at the harsh fines in the bill but there’s no reason to believe the penalties themselves lack constitutionality.

Does the bill, even after amendments, overreach? Possibly. The language is too vague in some places, and a reverse-onus clause in the section dealing with the civil liability of student groups and institutions might be a problem. Does the bill compare to the War Measures Act? Not even close.

But in several important respects, the potential Charter issues aren’t the main reason this bill represents a major failure on the part of the Charest government.

First, the bill does nothing to address the lawlessness that has characterized tactics used by certain elements of the protest movement. All of these activities – flagrant defiance of court injunctions, violence, vandalism, intimidation and assault – were already illegal. The problem up until now has been a lack of enforcement, not a lack of legislation.

Second, by casting its net so wide, the bill threatens to criminalize the largely peaceful activities of a majority of the protesters. Given the current climate, this is a bad idea.

Third, the bill cancels (okay, technically it postpones) remaining classes. For people who blandly titled a bill “An Act to enable students to receive instruction from the postsecondary institutions they attend,” I think the policy geniuses in Quebec City have an inappropriate flair for irony.

Finally, the bill encourages the protesters, media and critics to continue to frame the story as the Quebec state versus the right to protest. Such a narrative provides only a partial picture of the debate and of the rights that have been trampled during this saga. The majority of students in Quebec have not joined the protests; rather, they have sought to continue their classes. They have that right, or at least they did, until the government of Quebec failed to protect it

Emmett Macfarlane is a political scientist at the University of Victoria. You can follow him on Twitter @EmmMacfarlane


 

How Quebec’s back-to-school bill fails

  1. I am amazed at how many people who live outside of Quebec appear to be jumping on the band-wagon. The students started by demanding a freeze on tuition, notwithstanding the fact that tuition in Quebec is already one of the lowest in Canada and possibly North America. Those who demand for free university education cite Greece, Cuba and some European countries. What about the other factors – standard of living, quality of life, access to healthcare and social services?

    The Unions see this as a Godsend. They can inject thousands of dollars under the pretext of helping the students when they are really helping themselves. What about the rights of the those students who were barred from classes or were forcibly removed? What about the commuters who lost thousands of hours trying to get to and from work – the same people who pay over eighty percent of the cost of education? What about the bridges that were blocked or the rioting and destruction of property?

    The original demonstrations have now been taken over by anarchists and powerful Unions and unfortunately, the students do not see that.

    Before criticizing the government for raising fees or passing laws/bills to protect its citizens please move here and then pass judgment.

  2. most students who finished their semester are at the English CEGEP’s and universities. Others are at HEC, Poly and ETS. They are preparing for paying jobs, not welfare supplemented Starbuck’s salaries.

  3. After having gained a daughter on account of a weird affair entailing a brainwashed new discovery your musings has helped me to rethink the meaning of it all, you’ve got a new favorite reader

  4. I just wanted to say j00 roxorz for this Very Unique piece congradulations.