The federal government has taken a dangerous step into provincial territory with its Supreme Court intervention on Quebec’s Bill 21. Ottawa is now asking the courts to put limits on how Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the notwithstanding clause — can be used. Make no mistake: this is an assault on legislative sovereignty and a betrayal of the constitutional deal struck in 1982.Section 33 was never meant to be a polite suggestion. It was the price of bringing the Constitution home. Without it, the Charter would have been a straightjacket, giving unelected judges unchecked power over laws passed by elected representatives. The notwithstanding clause is an escape valve, a recognition that in a federal democracy, legislatures have the final say — not the courts..EDITORIAL: King Carney’s Palestinian statehood decree is a dangerous reward for terrorism.However, Attorney General Sean Fraser now insists “prolonged” use of Section 33 amounts to an “indirect amendment of the Constitution.” He wants judges to declare when a law violates Charter rights even if the clause is invoked — a position that would neuter the clause entirely. That is not what Canadians agreed to in 1982, and it is not what the Constitution says. Section 33 is explicit: a legislature may declare an act operates “notwithstanding” certain Charter provisions, and that declaration lasts five years unless renewed. Nothing more, nothing less.This is not about whether one likes Quebec’s Bill 21. Ontario has opposed it on principle, while defending Quebec’s right to invoke Section 33. That is the key point: it is for voters in Quebec, Alberta, or Saskatchewan to judge their governments at the ballot box. If citizens believe their rights have been trampled, they can throw the bums out. That’s democracy. It is not for Ottawa to rewrite the rules after the fact..Saskatchewan’s Parents’ Bill of Rights is a recent example. After a judge blocked its pronoun policy in 2023, Premier Scott Moe recalled the legislature, passed the law, and invoked Section 33. Whether one supports the policy or not, it was a lawful use of the clause — exactly what it was designed for. Alberta, facing challenges to its transgender legislation, is preparing to follow the same path. Again, voters will have their say.Critics claim that without federal “guardrails,” rights will be trampled. But rights are always balanced against the will of the people. The Charter itself is a compromise between individual rights and parliamentary supremacy. Courts are not the only guardians of liberty. In fact, the real safeguard is the voter. Politicians who misuse Section 33 will pay a political price..SYRETT: America’s Socrates: Charlie Kirk and the silencing of truth.Ottawa’s gambit is also reckless for national unity. Quebec has already branded the move a “direct attack” on its sovereignty. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has warned it risks tearing at the fabric of Confederation. She’s right. Western Canadians remember all too well how the Constitution was patriated without their full consent. To now have Ottawa attempt to rewrite the deal through the courts is political dynamite.Even Manitoba’s decision to side with Ottawa underscores the problem. It is not the job of one province, let alone the federal government, to police how another legislature uses its constitutional tools. Section 33 was deliberately left broad to avoid exactly this kind of second-guessing..The stakes could not be higher. If the Supreme Court accepts Ottawa’s argument, Section 33 will be gutted. Legislatures will become little more than debating clubs, forced to bow before the courts even when they invoke their constitutional authority. That is not federalism. That is judicial supremacy.Canadians need to understand what is on the line. Today it is Quebec’s Bill 21. Tomorrow it could be laws on education, health care, parental rights, or language. Once the principle is surrendered, it cannot be reclaimed..HANNAFORD: Whose call on health? Geneva's, not Ottawa's.The federal government must respect the Constitution as it was written, not as activist lawyers wish it had been written. Section 33 is not a loophole. It is not a mistake. It is the cornerstone of a hard-fought compromise that keeps this country together.Ottawa should back down. If not, it will be the Supreme Court that decides whether Canada remains a federation of self-governing provinces — or slides into a judicially managed state where the people’s voice is silenced.
