Québec’s favourite constitutional escape hatch could be sealed shut.
Driving the news: Ottawa and five provinces are filing their arguments today with the Supreme Court in the landmark case over Québec’s Bill 21, the secularism law that bans teachers, police, and other public servants from wearing religious symbols at work.
- At the crux of the case is Québec’s pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause — Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — which shielded the bill from any court challenges.
- The clause gives provinces the power to override some rights, including freedom of religion and the presumption of innocence in criminal charges, for five years.
Catch-up: Ottawa is expected to argue against the clause in court, while Québec and other provinces are advocating for its use. Doug Ford became the first Ontario premier ever to use the clause in 2021 before leaning on it again in 2022 to force 55,000 unionized education employees back to work.
Why it matters: The case comes down to how far governments can go with the notwithstanding clause. If the Supreme Court rules against Québec’s pre-emptive use of Section 33, it would set a precedent that could limit its future use.
- Alternatively, a ruling in Québec’s favour could empower provinces to use the clause more liberally.
Zoom out: Québec has said any restriction of Section 33 would be seen as an attack on its autonomy. Not to be dramatic, but one political scientist likened a ruling against the clause to “throwing a political bomb” at the province.—LA