REGINA – Premier Scott Moe has signed his name to a joint letter to Prime Minister of Canada on a case with major implications for the Notwithstanding Clause.
The letter is in connection to the case English Montreal School Board, et al v Attorney General of Quebec, et al. That case is headed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where they are set to hear arguments on the Notwithstanding Clause — s.33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Federal Minister of Justice Sean Fraser had filed a factum on behalf of the federal government as intervenor on Sept. 19, where they are seeking limits on how the provinces can use the Notwithstanding Clause to override the Charter.
In a post on Facebook, Premier Moe raised alarm bells about the Feds’ intervention, characterizing it as “the federal government’s attempt to limit the provinces’ ability to use the notwithstanding clause,” and said he would “strongly oppose” it.
“This would mean a significant infringement on the autonomy of provinces and their elected legislatures.”
In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, the province confirmed that Moe had signed on to a joint letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, along with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Ontario Premier Ford, Quebec Premier Francois Legault and Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston.
According to the province the Premiers are expressing “deep concern about this attack on the provincial sovereignty and the agreement that allowed the Charter to work in the first place.”
Their joint letter reads as follows:
“Dear Prime Minister:
“In English Montreal School Board, et al v Attorney General of Quebec, et al (SCC File No. 41231), the Supreme Court of Canada will consider important questions about the scope and application of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982 C11(Charter) – better known as the notwithstanding or parliamentary sovereignty clause.
“As you are aware, the Attorney General of Quebec is the respondent in this appeal, and the Attorneys General of Canada, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta are participating as intervenors.
“We write jointly to express our profound disappointment with the content of the federal government’s factum in this appeal. The Attorney General of Canada’s submissions seek to advance never-before-seen limits on the ability of democratically elected legislatures to use the notwithstanding clause. Moreover, Canada’s factum proposes an unclear and unworkable legal standard with no basis in the text of the Constitution.
“Put simply, the federal government’s arguments represent a complete disavowal of the constitutional bargain that brought the Charter into being. These arguments threaten national unity by seeking to undermine the sovereignty of provincial legislatures, a fact we will raise for the consideration of the full Council of the Federation given the fundamental implications for Canadian federalism. Indeed, the federal government’s position amount to a direct attack on the foundational constitutional principles of federalism and democracy.
“Section 33 was designed to preserve parliamentary sovereignty with respect to the Charter rights enumerated within it. As we have repeatedly made clear, regardless of our positions on the content of Bill 21, we support the constitutional right of any provincial legislature to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
“We jointly ask that the federal government reconsider its approach to the English Montreal School Board, et al v Attorney General of Quebec, et al appeal, and withdraw its written legal argument immediately.”
