Bill 21 affirms that Qubec is "a lay State" (s. 1), and reaffirms the laicity of the State based on the four following foundational principles (s. 2):

2. The separation of State and religions;
4. The religious neutrality of the State;
6. The equality of all citizens; and
8. Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

• Section 6 of Bill 21 mandates, under the principle of secular public services, that certain government employees (including school teachers, police, Crown prosecutors and judges) do not wear religious symbols at work.
• Section 34 of Bill 21 provides that the Act is enforceable notwithstanding sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [the "Charter"].

The legal challenge

• Bill 21 is currently being legally challenged.
• In Hak c. Procureure gnrale du Qubec, 2019 QCCA 2145 [Hak], the Quebec Court of Appeal mentions the use of the notwithstanding clause:

"Since the discriminatory effect of theAct is obvious, the legislature included the so-called "notwithstanding" clause, namely,section 34 of theAct, which expressly states that its provisions will have effect regardless ofsections 2 and7 to 15 of theCanadian Charter. It should be noted thatsection 33 of theCanadian Charter, which allows such a derogation, does not refer to section 28 of saidCharter, a matter that will be discussed below." [para 9]

Your task

• Time has quickly passed and the Hak case is now about to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
• You are invited by the Court to act as an amicus curiae on this case.
• Specifically, the Court wants to understand how the principle of parliamentary sovereignty interacts with the principle of constitutional supremacy where a government invokes the notwithstanding clause. Are they in contradiction? If yes, can they be reconciled? 
• What are the dangers of the notwithstanding clause regarding our rights and freedoms? 
• Is there any other section of the charter that could be used to challenge Bill 21? 
• A brief factum to support the argument.
•