Bill 39, called the Notwithstanding Clause Limitation Act, 2025, changes how laws can use a special part of the Canadian Constitution called the "notwithstanding clause." This clause allows governments to pass laws that go against certain rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill restricts the use of this clause, letting it only be used in specific emergency situations, and requires more transparency and approval. It states the government must explain why using this clause is necessary and consider other options before doing so. Additionally, a bill using this clause needs at least two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Assembly to approve it. The law came into effect when it was officially approved, or "received Royal Assent."
If the bill becomes law, it will be harder for the government to pass laws that go against certain rights in the Charter. They can only do this in very urgent cases, such as if there is a serious danger to people's health or safety, and only after showing there were no better options. Before using this clause, the government has to submit a report explaining why it’s necessary and why other choices were not possible. Also, at least two-thirds of the lawmakers must agree before such a bill becomes law. This means more oversight and limits on laws that might restrict your rights or freedoms.
No publicly available information.
Supporters of the bill argue it makes the use of the notwithstanding clause more transparent and limited. They say this law ensures that rights protected in the Charter are not easily overridden and that lawmakers must carefully consider whether it is necessary to do so. Supporters believe that requiring a large majority of two-thirds of lawmakers to approve these laws helps protect democracy and prevents the government from using the clause too often or unfairly.
People who oppose the bill argue that it still allows the government to use the notwithstanding clause in emergencies, which could be needed in true crises. Critics say the new rules might slow down important decisions and could still be used to bypass rights, just with more paperwork and votes. They worry that the requirement of a two-thirds majority, while increasing oversight, may not prevent all misuse of the clause in urgent situations. Opponents believe that protecting rights should not depend on strict political approval processes that may delay action during emergencies.