The debate over Quebec’s Laicity law has recently permeated the Canadian national and constitutional discourse. In his brief filed with the Supreme Court of Canada on the Quebec’s Bill 21, the Federal Attorney General, Sean Fraser has urged the Supreme Court justices to set limits on the application of the section 33,  known as the Notwithstanding Clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These remarks have sparked an immediate backlash from Quebec and certain other provinces such as Alberta and Ontario. The federal government’s expectation that the Supreme Court should restrict the invocation of section 33 reveals its lack of viable options to challenge Quebec’s Bill 21. Relying on the Supreme Court to place restrictions on the application of section 33 is not only an infeasible approach, but it also is conducive to triggering a constitutional crisis and intensifying federal/provincial conflict.

Prior to identifying and analyzing the options available to the federal government to challenge Quebec’s impugned law, it is essential to provide a brief background to the case before the Supreme Court of Canada. Enacted in June 2019, Quebec’s Bill 21, officially referred to as an Act Respecting the Laicity of the State, prohibits certain public sector workers such as teachers, police officers, judges, and government lawyers from wearing religious symbols while on duty. Quebec’s Bill 21 aims at affirming, solidifying secularism, and maintaining religious neutrality in the public sector. The Quebec government adopted Bill 21 based on the findings and recommendations of the 2008 Bouchard-Taylor Commission. One of the main recommendations of the Commission that the Quebec provincial government capitalized on was prohibiting “… provincial judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers and prison guards from wearing religious signs and clothing while on the job.”

Quebec’s Bill 21 was challenged at the Quebec Superior Court in 2022. The court found the Bill to be in violation of the Charter provisions. However, Quebec government had invoked section 33 of the Charter which allows parliament or legislature of a province to invoke this section to override rights and freedoms mentioned in section 2 and sections 7-15 of the Crater for a duration of five years subject to renewal. In his ruling, Justice Marc-Andre Blanchard of the Quebec Superior Court found that “Bill 21 does not violate Canadian constitutional architecture or the rule of law,” However, Justice Blanchard ruled  that two parts of the Bill ( extending the Bill to English School Borads and  the members of the National Assembly were in violation of the Charter protected rights in section 23 and section 3 respectively  that could not be taken away by invoking section 33. The Quebec government appealed the ruling by the Quebec Superior Court to the high court in the province. In March 2024, the Quebec

© E-International