A legal challenge to Quebec’s secularism law, known as Bill 21, will be heard at the Supreme Court of Canada beginning Monday, and legal experts say whatever the eventual ruling, it will have a profound effect on constitutional law in Canada.
The highly anticipated high court challenge to Bill 21 has been years in the making, but legal debate is likely to focus primarily on Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the provision known as the “notwithstanding clause,” which shields legislation from most court challenges over violations of fundamental rights.
François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec government pre-emptively invoked the provision into the law passed in June 2019.
The Quebec law, known as Act respecting the laicity of the state, sets out the principles of secularism in the province. Among its most controversial measures is the prohibition of civil servants who are considered in positions of power — such as police officers, teachers and judges — from wearing religious symbols at work.
“What lies at the heart of the challenge before the Supreme Court is far less the act on state secularism than the criteria for suspending the application of human rights and freedoms,” said Louis-Philippe Lampron, a professor at the Université Laval’s School of Law.
“That’s why the upcoming Supreme Court decision will be a true earthquake in constitutional law, no matter which way the Supreme Court rules.”
Related: Carney takes Emergencies Act fight to Supreme Court
soooooooooo basically those holding separatist sympaties, ie pretty much any kaybeck administration, are aiming for something that will be in the interests of ORDINARY CANADUHIANS.
far out. we wont have to kowtow to the muzzies getting in our face with the honking honking honking aka ‘call to prayer’ etc etc amlright?
Carney will use the supreme court to remove what few rights we have. Elbows up.
I’m old enough to remember the high dudgeon the Laurentian Elite got into when someone wanted to change the senate appointment process to respect a provincial decision to elect their senate representative and they insisted it can’t happen without a constitutional amendment.
Funny how this time they have all gone mute.
But I digress.
This is one of those be careful what you ask for things.
It was the NWSC that got the provinces to sign on to Trudeau’s charter.
If the court doesn’t come back with a hands off decision in response to Ottawa, then consider the deal is off.
Alberta will get it’s independence, along with a few other provinces.
Yes, my understanding is that provinces wanted something written into Pierre Trudeau’s constitution to protect themselves from the federal government and activist judges appointed by the prime minister. The notwithstanding clause was the compromise that ensured elected provincial legislatures would have the final say on laws that fell within section 33 of the constitution, instead of appointed and unelected judges. Looks like the Ford decision agreed with the provinces.
To now have a very Liberal appointed court attempt to change the constitution’s notwithstanding clause through the backdoor would justify the province’s fears about the power of unelected, politically appointed judges. If the Liberals want to make changes to the constitution then they have the ability and responsibility to do it through the amending formula. If the federal government chooses to make sneaky changes through the very courts that the provinces wanted protection from then I’d consider the Canadian constitutional contract null and void. After all, the notwithstanding clause was essential to get certain provinces, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, on board to sign the 1982 constitution.
Oregon has a similar law banning public schol teachers from wearing religious symbols. It was part of a 1921 law banning Catholic K-12 schools. That part was struck down in the Society of Sisters v. Pierce (1925/) decision. The ACLU promises to defend the religious symbols part of this KKK-inspired law if anyone challenges it.
If the SCOC can write provisions into the Constitution, nothing will stop it from repealing provisions.
Vrend v. Alberta
l find it grossly offensive that a dozen APPOINTED individuals have such influence and sway over the some 41,400,000 rest of us. including non-citizens.
get out ABSK GET OUT GET OUT and you can have an ELECTED senate and a properly VETTED supreme court. *you dont need to join USA to cherry pick the best parts of their governing process*
From the Internet … “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF) protects a number of rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression and the right to equality. It forms part of our Constitution – the highest law in all of Canada – and is one of our country’s greatest accomplishments.”
The CCRF forms part of our constitution which Quebec refused to sign. Then this …
“The Quebec law, known as Act respecting the laicity of the state, sets out the principles of secularism in the province. Among its most controversial measures is the prohibition of civil servants who are considered in positions of power — such as police officers, teachers and judges — from wearing religious symbols at work.”
“What lies at the heart of the challenge before the Supreme Court is far less the act on state secularism than the criteria for suspending the application of human rights and freedoms,” said Louis-Philippe Lampron, a professor at the Université Laval’s School of Law.
“That’s why the upcoming Supreme Court decision will be a true earthquake in constitutional law, no matter which way the Supreme Court rules.”
In summary, Quebec never signed the constitution and therefore did not accept the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, yet Quebec law is about to create a true earthquake in Canadian constitutional law, affecting the whole country … based on something they never voted for. Is that what the rest of Canada voted for?
I fully expect the 7 Supremes to amend the constitution to prevent Quebec and the rest of Canada from engaging in political acts that they don’t like.
Nevermind, that they don’t have that power.
Unremarkable that Carney is litigating to defend the government’s ability to engage in illegal actions.
It is my fervent hope that the SCOC strikes down the Quebec law, and with it, declares a purposefully designated section of the constitution as…unconstitutional? Thus cementing the fact that we will be ruled, even more so, by unelected, appointed judges who all have the same basic criteria; faithful adherence to the liarberal party of canaduh.
It will hopefully lead to drive the final stake through the feculent corpse of Soviet Canuckistan. The PQ will go from winning a majority in October to a landslide and they will use this as additional fodder in their efforts for independence. I pray (without ceasing) that they succeed.
Here, in Alberta, another faithful member of the liarberal party will rule that me even expressing an opinion as to the direction of my home is unconstitutional and abrogates a 150 year old treaty that COMPLETELY CEDED all of Alberta to the Crown. All of this because some corpulent, corrupt, greedy “chief” can keep his $400k salary for doing SFA while his people live in squalor and succumb to despair and addiction.
Imagine that! A judge will twist themselves into knots to say that even having a referendum on the matter of independence somehow violates Treaty 7 and Treaty 6. Without one reason why expressing an opinion would do so
I think whatever the SCOC has to say about Section 33 or whatever they look at within the rest of the constitution is outside their jurisdiction, I can’t imagine how crappy tier 2 Canada will be if the SCOC manages to strangle Section 33 and Alberta leaves.
We’ll need a massive border guard to keep the eastern riff-raff out.
I doubt the SCOC can say that a law passed with Section 33 cited, that it could be outside the law which is being set aside so this law is then passed.
The alternative to that is tossing the entire constitution in the bin. A set group of jurists can’t set the constitution aside as the constitution isn’t constitutional?
It is my understanding that, in essence, the Federal government is trying to get their appointed liarberal judges to declare that a portion of the constitution is unconstitutional!!!
I don’t doubt for a second that the fix is in already. At that point, the worthless trash that is the Soviet Canuckistan “constitution” becomes wholly and completely nullified. Alberta should immediately withdraw its signature from the 1982 PET piece of garbage. Quebec has never signed the G#d D@mned thing but is the greatest recipient of it, so we can should just withdraw our signature.
Will Danielle invoke Section 33 when the liarberal judge decides I don’t even get asked my opinion because Chief Heap Big Cheque might not get his new F150 this year?
Didn’t the California Supreme Court already rule Proposition 8, which amended the california constitution to make marriage as between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional?