Ongoing hearings at the Supreme Court of Canada over Quebec’s secularism law, Bill 21, have revealed a growing divide across the country about how the notwithstanding clause should be used.
Bill 21 bans some public workers, including teachers, from wearing religious symbols on the job. Quebec used the Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in advance to protect the law from being struck down in court.
The federal government, along with Manitoba and British Columbia, says courts should still be able to give non-binding opinions on whether a law violates Charter rights—even if they can’t overturn it. Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta disagree, arguing courts should stay out once the clause is used.
Some groups challenging the law say the clause was never meant to be used before a court ruling. They believe courts should first decide if rights are being violated.
Supporters of court involvement say judges can give clear, fact-based guidance to the public. Opponents argue it would waste time and create confusion since the rulings wouldn’t be legally binding.
The hearings are continuing, and a final decision is expected in the coming months.
