The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has presented a stark constitutional challenge to Quebec’s secularism law, Bill 21, before the Supreme Court of Canada. In a landmark hearing, the bishops argued the legislation represents an unconstitutional imposition of an “anti-religious ideology” that fundamentally alters Canada’s pluralist constitutional framework.
Phil Horgan, president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League, argued on behalf of the CCCB during the historic four-day hearing in March. He contended that Bill 21’s “purpose and effect” is to “unilaterally amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”
The law, passed in 2019, prohibits certain public sector employees—including teachers, police officers, and government lawyers—from wearing religious symbols while performing their duties. Quebec preemptively invoked the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause (Section 33) to shield the legislation from challenges based on Charter rights to freedom of religion and expression.
Horgan argued that such a “drastic” change to Canada’s constitutional character—from a pluralist, pro-religion foundation to an expressly anti-religious posture—can only be made by the federal government using its authority over criminal law or its constitutional powers for “peace, order, and good government.”
“Our constitution is founded on a political theory that sees fundamental rights and freedoms as God-given,” stated the bishops’ factum submitted to the court. “To adopt an expressly anti-religious viewpoint, as the act purports to do, is an amendment of our existing federal constitution.”
During oral arguments, Justice Malcolm Rowe pressed Horgan on the claim that Canada’s constitution is “pro-religion,” asking for specific provisions beyond the preamble’s reference to “the supremacy of God.” Horgan cited Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which protects denominational school rights, and noted federal charity law recognizes religion as a public good.
The bishops’ intervention highlights a central tension in the case: whether the use of the notwithstanding clause completely immunizes legislation from judicial review of its constitutionality, or whether courts can still examine whether a law exceeds provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec’s government, supported by the attorneys general of Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, argues that once the notwithstanding clause is invoked, courts should not interfere in what becomes a political debate. “It is not up to a court to answer a question that doesn’t concern the courts,” Quebec lawyer Isabelle Brunet told the justices.
However, the federal government and other intervenors take a contrary position. Guy J. Pratte, representing the Attorney General of Canada, argued Section 33 allows legislatures to override Charter rights but does not prevent judges from issuing an opinion on whether fundamental freedoms are violated.
The CCCB’s factum warns that Bill 21 “turns the expression of religious belief, through the wearing of symbols, into something to be punished because such expression now conflicts with the dominant philosophical posture of laïcité.” It concludes: “Just as religious symbols manifest an underlying personal faith, the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook … that denies the divine.”
The Supreme Court has reserved its decision, with a ruling expected later this year. The outcome will have profound implications for religious freedom, federal-provincial relations, and the limits of the notwithstanding clause in Canadian constitutional law.
