Task Force seeks to join Supreme Court Case on Quebec’s language laws

Tashi Farmilo

The Task Force on Linguistic Policy, a Quebec-based grassroots organization, has applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to intervene in a high-profile constitutional case concerning the use of the notwithstanding clause by the province of Quebec.

At issue are Bills 21 and 96, two laws that invoke section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the notwithstanding clause — to shield provisions from judicial review. Bill 21 limits the wearing of religious symbols by public employees, while Bill 96 expands the reach of the Charter of the French Language, imposing new requirements on education, business, and public service delivery.

The Task Force, led by president Andrew Caddell, argues that the use of the clause must not override the fundamental rights of individuals — especially those who are unilingual anglophones or members of marginalised groups. “Our case represents individuals,” Caddell said in an interview. “Most of the other groups involved are institutions or organisations. We’re unique in that we’re a grassroots organisation.”

The Task Force’s motion, filed on May 13, asks to present arguments to the Court on the limits of section 33 and whether it allows legislatures to override rights in a way that makes them ineffective or inaccessible. The group asserts that pre-1982 constitutional principles — such as rule of law, minority rights, and the right to services in one’s language — remain relevant and must guide the interpretation of section 33.

Caddell, who is also a co-plaintiff in a separate court challenge to Bill 96, described how some provisions in the law create obstacles to healthcare and education in English. “We have people who weren’t born or raised in Canada, but who now live here and have difficulties accessing services,” he said. “One person with colitis can’t get information from her local clinic in English. Another is autistic and can’t access services in English, even though it’s his first official spoken language.”

He also raised concerns about how the law defines who qualifies as a ‘historic anglophone,’ which is based largely on one’s education history in Canada. “It’s extremely restrictive,” he said. “If you were educated abroad — even temporarily — or if your family moved for a few years, you may not qualify. That affects people’s ability to access services.”

According to Caddell, the impact is felt most by those already on the margins: the elderly, the rural poor, immigrants who speak English as a second language, and Indigenous communities, many of whom operate in English or their own languages. “These are the people who need services the most,” he said.

The Task Force also points to the law’s effects on employment and education. Under current rules, temporary English-language education permits are harder to renew, affecting families who move to Quebec mid-way through their children’s schooling. “It used to be that a six-year permit was enough to get a child through secondary school,” said Caddell. “Now it’s only three years, and it must be renewed annually. That’s a barrier for families who are here temporarily.”

While the Task Force supports the use and promotion of French in Quebec, it maintains that such efforts should not come at the expense of people’s access to essential services. “We really believe in the idea of the flourishing of French in Quebec,” Caddell said. “But we don’t believe it should be done at the expense of people who, for one reason or another, don’t speak the language well.”

The organisation, founded in 2022, is funded through private donations and currently has over 3,000 members. It has raised more than $200,000 from individual contributions and holds public events to raise awareness of linguistic rights. One such event — an expert panel on the history and use of the notwithstanding clause — is scheduled for June 11.

If granted standing by the Supreme Court, the Task Force would join a broad range of other parties, including school boards, civil liberties groups, and multiple provincial attorneys general. The Court’s ruling is expected to clarify how — and how far — section 33 can be used by legislatures in relation to Charter rights.

“We don’t think anyone should be left behind because of technical definitions or language barriers,” said Caddell. “People should be able to get the services they need, and participate fully in society, regardless of their language.”