The Observatory of Populism in Canada was founded as part of the 91亚色 Research Chair in Populism, Rights, and Legality, held by Emily Laxer, Associate Professor of Sociology at 91亚色鈥檚 Glendon Campus. The Chair鈥檚 broad aim is to discover the impacts of emerging populisms on contemporary debates over constitutional reform, minority rights, and the rule of law in Canada. It is composed of several interrelated research projects, undertaken by Dr. Laxer and a team of 91亚色 graduate students.
Here is a quick glance at some of these projects:
Introduced in 1982, the Notwithstanding Clause allows Canada鈥檚 federal and provincial parliaments to override sections 2, and 7 through 15, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a period of up to five years. Apart from its repeated use by Qu茅bec鈥檚 provincial government between 1982 and 1985, the clause was invoked just four times prior to 2000. Yet, since 2017, it has been credibly wielded six times by governments in Ontario, Qu茅bec, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick.
What role, if any, has the rise of populism played in this accelerated use of the Notwithstanding Clause? Laxer and her team are working to answer this question, by analyzing parliamentary debates pertaining to recent, high-profile uses of the clause in Ontario and Qu茅bec.
The first-ever Ontario Premier to invoke the clause, Doug Ford used it in 2021 to sidestep challenges to , which restricts third party advertising for 12 months preceding elections. Ford鈥檚 government also threatened, but ultimately did not use, the Notwithstanding Clause on two additional occasions: in 2018, to circumvent objections to , which diminished the size of Toronto鈥檚 City Council; and in 2022, to impose a contract on Ontario鈥檚 education support workers and override their right to strike (). Invoking the Notwithstanding Clause has also become a regular habit of Fran莽辞颈蝉&苍产蝉辫;尝别驳补耻濒迟鈥檚&苍产蝉辫;Coalition avenir Qu茅bec (CAQ) government, which used it in 2019 to prohibit certain public sector employees in Qu茅bec from wearing religious signs on the job (), and in 2021, to protect its language reforms bill () from Charter challenges.
Preliminary findings suggest that, in justifying the of the Notwithstanding Clause on these five occasions, the Ford and Legault governments have drawn on a framing of the 鈥減eople鈥 versus the 鈥渆lite鈥 that is characteristic of populism. Yet, their differing ideological agendas ultimately produced differing strategic approaches to rights and legality.
Passed in December 2022, the (ASA, for short) ostensibly empowers the Alberta government to disregard federal laws that it deems either outside federal jurisdiction or otherwise 鈥渉armful鈥 to Albertans. Proponents describe the ASA as defending the interests of the Albertan 鈥減eople鈥 against Ottawa 鈥渆lites鈥 who impose harmful environmental and public health policies. Critics, on the other hand, have described the ASA as undemocratic and even unconstitutional. This bill is therefore an ideal case study of the relationship between populism and the rule of law.
In this project, Laxer and her team aim to discover the underlying forces behind, as well as the consequences of, the ASA. They ask:
- How does the ASA fit within the history of Albertan political culture, particularly its emphasis on 鈥淲estern alienation鈥 and the political economy of fossil capitalism?
- Is Smith鈥檚 populism a simple continuation of longstanding right-wing populist traditions in Alberta? Or does it represent a radicalization of these tendencies?
- What role have autonomist, separatist, and 鈥渇reedom鈥 groups played in Smith鈥檚 rise to power and the ASA, and what are the implications for understanding the 鈥渕ainstreaming鈥 of the far-right in Alberta?
The study draws on multiple data sources, including newspaper reports, opinion polls, publicly available interviews with 鈥 and content published by 鈥 influential civil society actors and organizations, and parliamentary debates.