Populist Resonances and Liberal Democratic Tensions in Canada: Framing the Notwithstanding Clause in Two Provincial Cases

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract Scholars argue that populism strains liberal democracy, yet populist discourse varies widely across settings. This article investigates how populist resonances – rather than fully formed populist projects – shape democratic imaginaries in Canada, a multinational polity where this relationship remains understudied. We analyze parliamentary debates surrounding uses of the Notwithstanding Clause in Ontario and Québec. We treat the clause not as a legal instrument to be evaluated normatively, but as a venue through which governments articulate who the “people” are, what threatens them, and how democratic authority should be exercised in relation to rights, courts, and institutional constraints. Our analysis shows that both provincial governments deployed justificatory strategies echoing populist people-centrism, anti-elitism, majoritarianism, and legal resentment. Yet these resonances were partial and conditioned by ideology: in Ontario, neoliberal framings of “taxpayers” limited legal resentment, while in Québec, nationalist constructions of the “people” enabled broader claims about parliamentary sovereignty and collective rights.