In the last few weeks, things have progressed very quickly on the front of secularism, both nationwide and in Quebec.
To give some context: in 2019, the Quebec provincial government decided to use the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively for its new law on secularism (Bill 21), shielding it from constitutional challenges before any court ruling.
One of the difficulties in explaining what is happening in Quebec is that the term laïcité has no true equivalent in English. It does not simply mean secularism (which is too broad), but rather the religious neutrality of the state, understood in a very specific—and increasingly restrictive—way.
Law 14 and the End of Multiculturalism
The adoption of Law 14 (Act respecting integration into the Québec nation) in May 2025 paved the way for what we are now witnessing. In this law, the Quebec government explicitly renounced the Canadian doctrine of multiculturalism:
In short, Canada has traditionally been known as a welcoming country for multiple cultures: Italians, Ukrainians, Pakistanis, and many others live side by side while retaining their cultural identities. They are Italians, Ukrainians, and Pakistanis who live in Canada. Quebec, by contrast, is increasingly asking immigrants to identify first as Québécois who then have a Jewish or African heritage.
Schools as the Testing Ground
In the early 2000s, the deconfessionalization of Quebec’s school system began. Catholic and Protestant school boards were abolished. Religious or moral instruction was replaced by the now-infamous Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program, imposed on all students.
All religions were presented from a so-called “neutral” perspective. In practice, this meant that religions were treated as cultural phenomena—implicitly false—while students were taught that respecting all beliefs was part of social harmony.
A Catholic confessional private school asked to be exempted from the ERC program so it could continue teaching its former Catholic curriculum. The Quebec government refused, judging it insufficiently neutral. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court of Canada (Loyola High School v. Quebec), which forced the school to teach ERC “neutrally.” However, the Supreme Court granted the Catholic school the right to teach Catholicism from its Catholic perspective, stating:
However, the notwithstanding clause allows any province to “hit the button” and exempt itself from the findings of the Court.
Many Quebecers criticized ERC as a vehicle for indoctrinating children into Canadian multiculturalism. In 2024, it was replaced by the CCQ program (Citizenship and Quebec Culture)—on the one hand, no more religion, and on the other hand, helping students “understand” what it means to be a “real” Québécois.
From State Neutrality to State Control
Law 21, currently before the Supreme Court of Canada, seeks to prohibit people in positions of authority (judges, government officials, teachers, etc.) from displaying any religious symbols.
While the case is still before the courts, Quebec adopted Law 94, which extends these restrictions to all personnel in public and private schools and early childhood centres—including cooks and non-teaching staff. The law also forbids public schools from providing any room, even during lunch hours or after school, for religious activities of any kind.
The Parti Québécois, the province’s main separatist party, has promised to go even further than the present government if elected in 2026: it would extend the ban on religious symbols to all students, from pre-K to college.
From a Canadian perspective, this represents a clear infringement on freedom of religion. A Muslim student would no longer be allowed to wear a hijab, a Jewish student a kippah, a Sikh student a kirpan, nor Christians a cross or even a Jesus T-shirt.
Quebec has become increasingly trigger-happy with the notwithstanding clause. For the uninitiated, this clause functions as a constitutional joker card, allowing provinces to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while removing citizens’ ability to challenge such laws in court.
“We Are a Minority”—Therefore Others Must Yield
The Quebec government regularly invokes the argument that French-speaking Quebecers are a linguistic minority in North America to justify diminishing the rights of immigrants and religious minorities. Anyone who challenges these policies is quickly accused of being “racist” against French Canadians.
Please understand me: I am proud of being a Québécois. But even without the Canadian multicultural doctrine, multiculturality in Quebec is a fact that should not be denied. Quebec is plural, and it is richer for being plural. True state neutrality should recognize that its population shares a multiplicity of worldviews and religious and philosophical beliefs. Quebec is putting aside the Canadian idea of social cohesion in favor of social coercion.
It is within this broader context that, at the federal level, the Bloc Québécois agreed to support the Liberals on Bill C-9, in exchange for removing what they called a “dangerous” religious exemption from the Criminal Code.
In reality, Canada already possesses legal tools to address incitement to hatred and violence. The underlying assumption behind this move is far more troubling: that the Bible, the Torah, and the Qur’an are dangerous books—and that, in the name of state neutrality, religious beliefs that contradict state-approved morality should not be tolerated.
Neutrality Has Become Hostility
The Quebec state seems to forget that neutrality means precisely that: neutrality. The state is to be agnostic toward the individual before it—neither promoting nor obstructing religion. At this point, Quebec is no longer neutral. It is increasingly oppressive toward people of faith.
The newly proposed Bill PL-9 would remove all public funding from subsidized private schools that select students or teachers based on religious criteria. Confessional private schools would be required—if they wish to remain funded—to stop all prayers and to cease speaking about Jesus or Allah during normal school hours. This violates not only freedom of religion but also freedom of association.
The Minister of Laïcité went so far as to say in a press conference that wishing someone “Merry Christmas” is acceptable if one is thinking about Santa Claus and elves—but not if one is thinking about Jesus. The clear message: any expression of faith should now be contained only within homes and places of worship.
Thank you for praying for Quebec and for us as Québécois Christians as we seek to prevent Quebec from implementing laws that would impede freedom of religion, association, and expression.
