People congregate outside the Supreme Court of Canada as the court hears appeals regarding Quebec’s secularism law (Bill 21) in Ottawa.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Quebec’s controversial Bill 21 is being heard in front of the Supreme Court of Canada until the end of this week. The eventual judgment in the landmark case will likely shape the boundaries between government powers and Canadians’ rights for years to come.
But what exactly is Bill 21, and why has it been challenged in court for the past seven years? Here’s the background of everything you need to know.
What is Bill 21 in Quebec?
Bill 21 prohibits public-sector workers from wearing religious symbols such as a cross, burka, hijab or yarmulke while in the workplace. It was enacted by Quebec’s provincial government in 2019.
The bill attempts to makes the province laïcité - a secular state, which has a distinct separation between church and the government. Challengers to Bill 21 say it’s unconstitutional and infringes on religious freedoms found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically for Muslim women, and the right to equality.
If the bill infringes on the Charter, how has it been allowed to stand?
In order for Bill 21 to stand, the Quebec government invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause in 2019. The clause allows governments to override rights that are in the Charter, and is subject to renewal after five years. The override can be renewed an unlimited number of times. Bill 21 was extended for another five years in 2024.
The notwithstanding clause was introduced with the patriation of the Charter in 1982. Despite the fact that Quebec didn’t sign the Constitution Act – of which the Charter is part – the province must still abide by the Constitution.
Bill 21 has been upheld twice by the provincial government: in the Quebec Superior Court in 2021 and the Quebec Court of Appeal in 2024. The province’s use of the clause was met with criticism from the judge in the 2021 case, Marc-André Blanchard.
The clause has been increasingly used by various conservative provincial governments in the last 10 years, including three laws put forward by the Alberta government in 2025 that placed restrictions on transgender and gender-diverse youth.
The notwithstanding clause has never been used by the federal government.
What is being determined by the Supreme Court for Bill 21?
The Supreme Court is hearing a constitutional challenge to Bill 21, put forward by six groups against the Quebec government. The court is examining whether the provincial government violated the Charter by banning public-sector workers from wearing religious symbols, and if it used the notwithstanding clause in a reasonable manner. The ruling will determine if secularism is deemed a special consideration to Quebec’s fundamental existence, similar to the province’s language laws.
The federal government is separately asking the Supreme Court for limits to be imposed on how often a province can use a notwithstanding clause on a bill. “The prolonged impossibility of exercising a right or freedom would, in practice, be tantamount to denying its very existence, which can be done only through a constitutional amendment,” Ottawa argued in its submission.
The hearing is taking place over four days, which is one of the longest hearings in the court’s history, and seven of the Supreme Court’s nine judges are hearing the case.
What has been said in the Supreme Court thus far?
On Monday, appellants presented their arguments, calling for the law to be struck down and for the Supreme Court to impose limits on the clause, as well as allow judges to issue rulings on rights violations.
“The backdrop of this case is religious symbols, but the true issue is the limit on legislative power on the one hand and judicial power on the other,” David Grossman, lawyer for one group of appellants, said Monday morning.
Tuesday’s arguments came from Quebec government lawyer Isabelle Brunet, who said the province didn’t have to justify using the notwithstanding clause, and that it shouldn’t be tampered with.
“It is not up to the court to answer a political question that does not concern the courts,” Ms. Brunet told the seven judges.
The Ontario and Alberta provincial governments argued against any limits on the clause and opposed the idea of judges looking at potential rights violations. The federal government also appeared in court Wednesday and insisted that the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause didn’t mean that governments could repeatedly use it to eliminate Charter rights.
Thursday will see outside interveners present their case to the Crown.
When will a decision be made?
It will likely take months before the Supreme Court releases the judgment. Justice Sheilah Martin retires on May 30, but is allowed to participate in judgments until the end of November.
With reports from David Ebner