On Thursday January 23, the Supreme Court announced it would hear a legal challenge to Québec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State, also referred to as Bill 21.
On Thursday, January 23, the Supreme Court of Canada announced it would hear a legal challenge to Québec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State. This Act is more commonly referred to as Bill 21, which has banned public workers in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols since it was first enacted in 2019.
Overview of Bill 21
Bill 21 was introduced by Simon Jolin-Barrette while he was serving as Minister of Immigration under incumbent Premier François Legault of the Coalition Avenir Québec provincial political party. The National Assembly of Québec passed the controversial Act on June 16, 2019.
Chapter 1 of Bill 21 emphasizes the importance of the separation of religion and the State. Section 1 begins with a declaration: “The State of Québec is a lay State.”
Chapter 2 section 6 prohibits an enumerated list of public workers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions. The list includes the President and Vice Presidents of the National Assembly, lawyers, peace officers, and teachers. Religious symbols are specified as including “clothing, a symbol, jewellery, an adornment, an accessory or headwear, that (1) is worn in connection with a religious conviction or belief; or (2) is reasonably considered as referring to a religious affiliation.”
Chapter 3 restricts an enumerated list of public workers from exercising their public service functions while wearing face coverings. The list includes members of the National Assembly, elected municipal officers, school board commissioners, peace officers, physicians, dentists, midwives, and subsidized home childcare providers.
Chapter 4 section 14 clarifies that “no accommodation or other derogation or adaptation, except those provided for in this Act, may be granted in connection with the provisions concerning the prohibition on wearing religious symbols or concerning the obligations relating to services with one’s face uncovered.”
Chapter 5 amends various provisions in two other Acts, including the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, to make them harmonious with Bill 21.
Chapter 6 section 31 grandfathers individuals currently working in roles on the enumerated lists, allowing them to continue to wear religious symbols so long as they exercise the same function within the same organization.
Bill 21’s section 34 invokes section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms, also known as the notwithstanding clause. The controversial notwithstanding clause of the Charter shields Bill 21 from being declared unconstitutional even if a court finds it contravenes the Charter. The notwithstanding clause’s provision must be renewed every five years. The last renewal was in 2024.
Criticism and Public Opinion of Bill 21
Bill 21 has been accused of targeting adherents to minority religions, including Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish Québecers. Despite evidence substantiating these concerns, the majority of Québecers appear to support the Act.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims highlighted the impacts that Bill 21 has had on the employability of Muslim women in Québec. Many muslim women wear a hijab or face coverings as part of their faith. One woman surveyed, Sarah, found herself “having to choose between [her] religion and [her] career” after Bill 21 became law.
The World Sikh Organization (WSO) is party to the legal challenge against Bill 21. The WSO has highlighted the personal impact on former Québec resident Amrit Kaur, who is a WSO Board Member and former WSO Vice President, who wears a dastaar (turban) as part of her Sikh faith. She wanted to be a teacher in Québec, but since the passage of Bill 21 she has been forced to move to British Columbia to pursue her profession.
The Association for Canadian Studies reported that 14.3 % of Jewish men and 15.4 % of Jewish women have themselves or had family members or friends impacted by Bill 21—compared to the 6.7 % and 7.6 % of all Québec resident men and women surveyed, respectively
Despite the evidence of targeted impacts, a 2019 Ipsos poll found that 63 % of Québecers support Bill 21. With the highest support found amongst voters for the Bloc Québécois, the People’s Party of Canada, and the Conservative Party—at 85 %, 76 %, and 62 %, respectively.
Decision History and Pending Supreme Court of Canada Challenge
The Québec Superior Court and the Québec Court of Appeal upheld Bill 21 with the caveat that the ban on wearing religious symbols could not be applied to members of the National Assembly. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada will mark the final judicial review of Bill 21.
Supreme Court Justice Mahmud Jamal has recused himself from hearing the case due to the involvement of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). Justice Jamal was President of the CCLA when the CCLA filed to challenge Bill 21 in 2019, before he was nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2021. Québec’s Justice Minister, Jolin-Barrette, issued a joint statement with Jean-François Roberge, the minister responsible for upholding secularism, saying Québec intends to defend the law until the end. The federal government has announced it would be intervening in the case and making arguments against Bill 21. Jolin-Barrette has stated that any federal intervention would be an affront to Québec’s autonomy.