I want to take a moment to express my disappointment in Canada’s media and how they have chosen to cover this week’s hearings at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the matter of Montreal English School Board, et al v. Quebec Attorney General.  This is likely the most significant constitutional case in Canada since the reference case that resulted in The Clarity Act.  

Overall, national media barely covered the case, and for the most part reduced it to a simplistic “dust up” over powers between the Federal and Provincial governments.  I wish it were so straightforward.  Some news outlets tried to frame it as “mean old Ottawa trying to restrict what provinces can do” (you can guess which ones I’m talking about).  Others talked about it in such milquetoast language that you would think the argument was over shades of the colour beige.

Did any of them bother to really explain the implications of how the Notwithstanding Clause (S33) has come to be used by the provinces?  No, they did not.  The implications are far more serious than you might expect.  If you adopt the position that Quebec and other provinces have, S33 turns into a political weapon used to strip rights from Canadians, resulting in a nation with a “patchwork” of rights defined by the provinces not by The Charter.  

The media had enormous opportunities to educate the public on how The Charter is interpreted by the courts, and the relevant cases over the last 4 decades that have been used to develop reasonable methods to interpret it.  Did they bother to do any of that?  Again, the answer is largely no.  Instead we got a small number of talking bobble-heads that have always hated The Charter spouting off and misleading people. 

Did the media take any time to explain the different positions and arguments put forth by intervenors in this case?  Not really.  I’ve done far deeper work on this blog trying to explain the legal arguments in layman’s terms.  Sadly, the media took the coward’s approach and did little more than “both sides” the matter without providing any kind of useful critical analysis.

At a time when the very fabric of rights law in Canada – and your ability to be confident that no matter where you live in Canada that you will enjoy the same rights as your fellow citizens – is under siege, Canada’s media chose to treat the whole affair as if it was a relatively minor spectacle of little import.  

Canadian media:  You failed all of us this week.