Parliament rejected the Bloc Québécois motion calling on the federal government to stop intervening in challenging Quebec’s secularism law, commonly known as Bill 21. The Liberals and New Democrats voted against it on Wednesday. The Conservatives supported the Bloc’s motion after being pressed by both the Liberals and Bloc MPs during the debate. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre openly opposed the ban on religious symbols, enshrined in Bill 21, which targets teachers and judges in particular. However, the federal government’s current intervention focuses on the use of the notwithstanding clause in the legislation for several sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During the Conservative leadership race, Poilievre said that, if he became prime minister, he would not reverse the government’s decision—made under former Liberal leader Justin Trudeau—to intervene in the challenge to Bill 21 when it reached the Supreme Court. At that time, in 2022, it was not yet clear how the federal government would do so. The federal government wants to see the use of the notwithstanding clause, or section 33 of the Charter, limited. If used repeatedly, it amounts to “indirectly amending the Constitution,” argues Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice Sean Fraser. In his view, the Court should be able to rule on whether repeated use of the clause can result in “irreparable harm” to the rights of Canadians. “The prolonged inability to exercise a right or freedom under section 33 would, in practice, amount to denying its very existence, which can only be done through constitutional amendment,” the brief states. Other provinces, such as Alberta, are siding with the Quebec government in defending the use of the notwithstanding clause. More specifically, the province’s Attorney General argues that section 33 is a “hard-won compromise” from constitutional negotiations and that it preserves the parliamentary sovereignty of the provinces. Shortly before Wednesday’s vote on the defeated motion, Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet denounced certain passages in the brief, particularly one suggesting that the “notwithstanding clause,” if not regulated, could “authorize arbitrary execution or slavery.” During question period, he asked Prime Minister Mark Carney “why he allows such insults,” to which the latter did not respond directly, repeating that it is “the job” of the federal government to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As for the New Democrats, their opposition to the Bloc motion was expected. “Suspense!” said MP Alexandre Boulerice ironically in a brief press scrum when asked how they would vote. Although he believes that the notwithstanding clause is used too systematically by the provinces and sometimes abusively, he feels that the federal government could have chosen its words more wisely in its brief. “I find that certain words are used that are abusive, I think, exaggerated, but I think that asking about the guidelines and framework for the use of the notwithstanding clause is a good question to ask,” said Boulerice. It’s unknown when the Supreme Court will hold hearings on the challenge to Bill 21, led by the English Montreal School Board. This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French Sept. 24, 2025.
