Tom Mulcair: Quebec government’s lack of moral compass on human rights is affecting campus life

Quebec Premier Francois Legault speaks at a news conference marking the end of the spring session at his office in Quebec City on June 6, 2025 THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jacques Boissinot (Jacques Boissinot/The Canadian Press)

Tom Mulcair is a former leader of the federal New Democratic Party of Canada between 2012 and 2017, and a columnist for CTVNews.ca.

A recent report by Quebec’s Ministry of Higher Education has assessed reported cases of discrimination and intimidation at two of Quebec’s junior colleges (CEGEPs). The inquiry focused on activities at Vanier and Dawson Colleges, taking place against the backdrop of renewed conflict in the Middle East—specifically, the war between Israel and Hamas.

The report followed an investigation involving dozens of interviews with relevant stakeholders. Its goal was to determine whether campus activities raised concerns about students’ physical or psychological safety.

It details a litany of institutional failures in handling complaints and highlights what appears to be clear bias.

It’s worth noting that both colleges are anglophone. In Quebec, the most intense university protest related to the war occurred at McGill. It appears that closer linguistic and cultural ties with protests in the U.S. and the rest of Canada have heightened tensions on Quebec’s English-language campuses in particular.

Alarmed by reports of politicization and polarization of campus life—from lectures to student clubs to prayer rooms—Minister Pascale Déry launched an independent investigation under the direction of her department.

Déry was sharply criticized by teachers’ unions and some commentators for initiating the inquiry, with critics arguing it was an attack on academic freedom. Some of those unions also support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

The BDS movement itself is highly controversial and widely regarded as central to efforts aimed at denying Israel’s right to exist. Unions, like all actors in society, are entitled to freedom of expression. What’s troubling is that the unions’ positions appear to have influenced their responses to the inquiry. Jewish teachers who have felt targeted or discriminated against because of campus activities have told me they believe their unions failed to respond fairly—due, in part, to anti-Israel bias.

The criticism aimed at Minister Déry, especially from unions, escalated quickly. While framed as a defence of academic freedom, the real impact was an attempt to intimidate the minister into abandoning the investigation. Déry, however, remained resolute. This newly released report validates her concerns.

For example, it cites a planned walkout at the two colleges that urged students to protest in order “to demand Minister Déry resign from her position, as she abuses her power as Minister of Higher Education for the Zionist agenda.”

One student newspaper published a caricature that it acknowledged was anti-Semitic but refused to publish opposing viewpoints submitted by other students.

The report underscores that freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are protected Charter rights. But it also makes clear that campus rules designed to ensure student safety were ignored.

One key finding is that the important principle of academic freedom is being invoked in various ways—sometimes to justify actions that are otherwise indefensible.

It’s also significant that Minister Déry is the only Jewish member of Quebec’s cabinet. The attacks on her actions quickly became pointed and personal, with repeated calls for her resignation. These criticisms came dangerously close to linking her decisions on Middle East matters to her faith.

To her credit, Déry has never publicly raised that aspect. But the implication hangs heavily over this controversy. Premier François Legault has, to date, defended her.

One cannot assess this situation in isolation from Quebec’s openly discriminatory laws targeting religious minorities and the English-speaking community.

Legault’s CAQ government has not hesitated to use religion and language as political tools. It should come as no surprise that such divisive tactics at the top are now being mirrored on campus. But that is no excuse.

The absence of a moral compass at the highest level of government has trickled down to institutions. In lacking a coherent approach to rights, Legault is left pleading: Do as I say, not as I do. When colleges fail to uphold and defend rights, they are just as culpable as the government.

The just-released ministerial report provides a reasoned and balanced analysis of these divisive events. Still, meaningful change is far more difficult when the government itself exploits religious and linguistic differences for political gain.

Recently, Legault’s CAQ government targeted two English-language universities, McGill and Concordia, slashing their funding and imposing new language requirements. The justification? That too much English was being heard in the streets of Montreal. (Legault’s own office is literally across the street from McGill’s Roddick Gates.)

In a recent decision, Quebec’s Superior Court dismissed that rationale, finding no evidence to support a threat to the French language. It struck down the budgetary rules that targeted the anglophone institutions.

In a stunning turn, it was Minister Déry who announced that, although the government would not appeal the ruling—it would ignore it. Legault plans to reintroduce the discriminatory rules using a new pretext, now that the “threat to French” argument has been legally discredited. Such a move is unprecedented in a democracy governed by the rule of law. Telling CEGEPs they aren’t respecting rules intended to protect their communities becomes a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is meant to protect all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast. Over 40 years old, its application remains uneven across provinces. The greatest threat to its integrity is the increasing use of the “notwithstanding clause,” which continues to erode its intended purpose.

That clause—introduced as a compromise to bring hesitant provinces onboard with constitutional repatriation in 1982—allows legislatures to declare certain laws operative even if they violate Charter rights.

Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government used the clause to override Charter protections and impose back-to-work legislation on CUPE education workers. While Ford initially vowed to use it again, public backlash in Ontario led him to repeal the law.

In Saskatchewan, Premier Scott Moe invoked the clause in legislation affecting LGBTQ+ students after a court struck it down.

But nowhere is the clause used more freely than in Quebec. The Supreme Court has held that provinces may invoke it preemptively—even before a law is challenged in court. In fact, Quebec’s Court of Appeal has ruled that courts may not even comment on whether such legislation is discriminatory. The notwithstanding clause can be used without test or justification.

Emboldened by this, Premier Legault has described it as the “parliamentary sovereignty clause”—clearly stating that elected officials, not judges, will decide what rights citizens have—or don’t have.

Predictably, this has created a chilling environment where even challenging discriminatory laws like Bill 21 (religion) or Bill 96 (language) is cast as an attack on Quebec itself.

The same goes for the blanket invocation of “academic freedom.” The message: nothing to see here—move along. If we’ve decided to discriminate, it’s nobody’s business. It’s protected by the academic version of the notwithstanding clause.

Quebec’s Bill 21 targets religious minorities broadly, and Muslim women in particular. It is finally headed to the Supreme Court. Legault is already preparing to frame any ruling against it as an attack on Quebec—and by extension, an attack by the federal government.

Despite the deeply troubling motives behind the law, don’t count on the Supreme Court to overturn it. The Charter, riddled with exceptions, cannot easily be interpreted to say what it doesn’t explicitly state. For now, the only cost of invoking the notwithstanding clause is political, not legal. That deterred Doug Ford—but not Scott Moe or François Legault.

Balancing competing rights is the duty of legislatures and courts alike. The report reminds us that this same responsibility now falls on college administrators—many of whom may not have the training or experience to navigate such complex terrain.

In today’s world of instant images, instant reactions, and instant judgment, there’s less and less space for thoughtful deliberation.

When complex concepts like academic freedom are used to justify actions that generate fear among students or staff, it’s time to step back. Wise, informed counsel is rare—but more necessary than ever.

In her reaction to the report, Minister Dery speaks of ”very troubling facts that bring to light a series of failures that have profoundly undermined the climate on both campuses, stoked tensions and weakened the ability to live together.”

She expresses her government’s resolve to deal with divisive behaviour and adds that “attending an educational institution that is healthy and safe is not a privilege, it’s a right.” No one can disagree with that.

Dery leaves the door open as to possible government actions and wisely invites the colleges themselves to take steps to correct the situation, failing which the government reserves the right to act in their place.

This is a delicate balancing act since the report also says that in the Quebec government’s view, a part of the problem is that Bill 21, that targets religious minorities, isn’t fully respected on those college campuses. If living together and avoiding divisions is the goal, Quebec also has to ask itself whether it hasn’t helped give rise to those very divisions with its own discriminatory actions.