Fraser admits Liberal notwithstanding clause agenda goes beyond Quebec
Justice Minister Sean Fraser admitted that the Liberals’ push to limit the notwithstanding clause goes beyond Quebec’s secularism law, revealing a deeper agenda to redefine Section 33 itself.
Justice Minister Sean Fraser admitted that the Liberals’ push to limit the notwithstanding clause goes beyond Quebec’s secularism law, revealing a deeper agenda to redefine Section 33 itself.
“This case is about more than the immediate issues before the Court. The Supreme Court’s decision will shape how both federal and provincial governments may use the notwithstanding clause for years to come,” said Fraser.
Fraser asked the Supreme Court to implement certain restrictions on provincial governments as part of Ottawa’s intervention in the legal battle over Quebec’s Bill 21, also known as the secularism law.
Bill 21 declared Quebec a secular state and banned government employees from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs, turbans or crosses to work. It was first passed in 2019 in the National Assembly of Quebec and later defended from litigation using the notwithstanding clause.
The notwithstanding clause, Section 33 of the Charter, was fundamental to the negotiation of the 1982 Constitution as it preserves the sovereignty and authority of provincial legislatures.
However, the federal government filed a factum with the Supreme Court on Thursday seeking to curtail it, arguing that repeated use of the clause amounts to “indirectly amending the Constitution.”
Several legal experts have warned that placing limits on Section 33 will upend the constitution and could send the country hurtling towards a crisis.
“I don’t think people realize how big this case is,” Canadian Constitution Foundation counsel Josh Deehas told True North.
“The notwithstanding clause was the compromise that allowed Pierre Trudeau and the provinces, other than Quebec, to agree to a Charter of Rights and repatriating the constitution in 1982. It hinged on the notwithstanding clause being in there.”
Ontario and Alberta supported the use of the notwithstanding clause in their own filings earlier this week, arguing that the Constitution was not something to be “undermined” by the Supreme Court.
Both provinces defended Quebec’s pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause in 2019.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said Wednesday she was “extremely disappointed” in the federal government, saying it risks not only national unity but “a foundational principle of our constitution.”
“While the Alberta government does not support the content of Quebec’s Bill 21, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Quebec’s constitutional right to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause as its government deems fit,” wrote Smith.
SCC filled to the brim with Liberal donor judges, let's give them the power to run the constitution? The constitution is Canadians last thin line against total control by the left wing extremists and the authoritarian Liberal government. We have lost lower courts, we have lost main stream media to the Liberal subsidies, they want to take away the guns of farmers and hunters, free speech depends on Liberal approved ideology, there is no slippery slope any more, we are in crash & burn territory.
The last paragraph should be studied by all Canadians, not by politicians, lawyers and judges and see if it lives up to what it defines….. everything it says the Liebreal’s have been taking away from us, freedom of speech (Freedom Convoy), crime, (Victim is the guilty one), immigration (cared for more than Canadians) health care, ( in a turmoil) and the list goes on and on…… this is not the Canada I want.