general limit in section 1 that allows "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The Oakes Test sets out the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of this exception. This analysis may consider conflicting Charter rights. For example, the right to equality based on sexual orientation under section 15 may be limited by the freedom of religion under section 2, and vice versa. It may also be limited by the right to denominational (religious) schools under Section 93 of the Constitution. Enforcement mechanism In the last decades, the rights of LGBTQ+ Canadians were largely enhanced due to several court decisions decided under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (), which was included in the Constitution of Canada in 1982, and came into force in 1985. Some of the cases were funded under the Federal Government's Court Challenges Program, which in 1985 was expanded to fund test cases challenging federal legislation in relation to the equality rights guaranteed by the Charter. There were also funding to challenge provincial laws under a variety of programs, but its availability had differed considerably from province to province. Notwithstanding In addition, section 15 is subject to the "notwithstanding clause" of the Charter that allows the federal Parliament and the provincial Legislatures to declare that a law is exempt from certain sections of the Charter for up to five years, which exemption may be renewed any number of times. In 2000, Alberta amended its Marriage Act to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The law invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Charter, but the amendment was nevertheless invalid since the capacity to marry is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction according to the Constitution. The notwithstanding clause can only be used to make exceptions to the Charter; it cannot change the federal division of powers. In any case, the five-year exemption period expired in 2005. The notwithstanding clause has never been used by the federal Parliament. It is generally believed that such a use would constitute a politically embarrassing admission that the law in question should violate human rights. However, the notwithstanding clause is no gateway for a government to exercise unjust or oppressive uses of political power. Section 33 of the Charter, as the entire Charter, is also subject to section 1, and, as it applies only to