ANALYSE | Warum die Anfechtung des Säkularismusgesetzes von Quebec durch den Obersten Gerichtshof für das ganze Land von Bedeutung ist | CBC-Nachrichten

The most interesting part of the challenge is Manitoba’s intervention that advances the argument that courts should give their opinion on matters over which governments have preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause. Governments (e.g., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Quebec) have used the clause preemptively and then have argued the matter does not belong in court because it has already been deemed constitutional by s.33, and the courts cannot give an authoritative decision on whether the legislation is actually noncompliant with charter rights. The idea is that many governments circumvent discourse between the courts and the public on the constitutionality and charter compliance of government policy or legislation by preemptively invoking the notwithstanding clause because the courts have been hesitant to weigh in on matters decided by s.33. If successful, Manitoba’s intervention would authoritatively establish that courts could weigh in and determine the constitutionality of legislation or government policy in the event that a government preemptively invoked the clause.

Manitoba’s intervention would facilitate discourse over the constitutionality and charter compliance of legislation, including bill 137 in Saskatchewan and Bill 21 in Quebec. Government’s couldn’t hide behind the notwithstanding clause and the uncertainty of the severity of the rights violations. It would allow courts to rule on matters otherwise shielded by the clause and establish precedent for the rest of the country. Overall, I think it is a great suggestion.