Ask Onix
Supreme Court hearing begins on Quebec's secularism law
Canada's highest court will hear arguments this week in a landmark case challenging Quebec's Bill 21, a law that bans public sector workers from wearing religious symbols. Legal experts say the ruling could redefine the balance between constitutional rights and parliamentary authority across the country.
What is Bill 21?
Passed in 2019 by the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government, Bill 21 prohibits civil servants-including teachers, police officers, and judges-from wearing religious symbols while on duty. The law invokes the notwithstanding clause, a provision in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows governments to override certain constitutional protections, including freedom of religion and equality rights.
The clause, Section 33 of the constitution, was included as a compromise when Canada patriated its constitution from the UK in the 1980s. It permits federal or provincial governments to bypass Charter rights for renewable five-year periods, effectively shielding laws from judicial review.
Why the case matters
Christine Van Geyn, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, called the case "the most important constitutional challenge in a generation." The outcome could set precedents for how-and when-the notwithstanding clause can be used, potentially reshaping the relationship between courts and elected officials.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has warned that Quebec's interpretation of the clause could open the door to extreme measures. In an op-ed, the CCLA asked whether governments could use the clause to ban abortion, criminalize dissent, or even legalize torture under the same logic.
"According to the Quebec government's logic, even in such cases, the courts would not only be powerless but also bound to silence."
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Debates over secularism and discrimination
Quebec's law is rooted in laïcité, a principle of state secularism similar to France's approach. Proponents argue it ensures religious neutrality in public institutions, while critics say it disproportionately targets religious minorities, particularly Muslim women who wear the hijab.
Ichrak Nourel Hak, a Muslim teacher in Quebec who wears a hijab, is one of the plaintiffs challenging the law. In a statement, she and the CCLA argued that Bill 21 "infringes on the dignity, rights, and freedoms of individuals working in or aspiring to work in the public service" and has a "disproportionate impact on Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish communities."
Quebec maintains that the law is protected by the notwithstanding clause and that its goal is to foster a shared civic identity. The province argues that the clause can be used preemptively and that its application aligns with Supreme Court precedent.
National unity at stake
The federal government, along with more than 50 interveners, will present arguments during the four-day hearing. Ottawa has not taken a position on the merits of Bill 21 but urges the court to limit how the notwithstanding clause can be used. In legal filings, the federal government warned that the clause was never intended to "distort or annihilate" Charter rights.
Five provincial premiers-Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia-have pushed back, accusing Ottawa of undermining provincial sovereignty. In a joint statement, they called the federal government's position a "direct attack on the foundational constitutional principles of federalism and democracy."
"The federal government's position amounts to a direct attack on the parliamentary sovereignty of the legislative assemblies of all of Canada."
Joint statement by five premiers
Broader implications
The notwithstanding clause has been invoked more frequently in recent years, including by Ontario to reduce Toronto's city council size, by Alberta to end a teachers' strike, and by Saskatchewan to require parental consent for students under 16 to change their names or pronouns at school.
Errol Mendes, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and intervener in the case, said the clause was designed as a "safety valve" but is now being used beyond its intended scope. "Our predictions were coming true," he said, "because there slowly started to be more and more use of the clause."
The Supreme Court last reviewed the notwithstanding clause in 1988. This week's hearing marks the first major challenge to its use in decades, with potential consequences for national unity and the future of constitutional rights in Canada.
