The Case for Bill 21

Download the JSGS Opinion Brief

In 2019, the Quebec legislature enacted Bill 21, which prohibits provincial government employees from wearing visibly religious symbols when exercising authority in a public institution. It immediately brought into focus the interpretation of individual versus collective rights.

Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom of the Canadian Constitution has four sub-sections:

1. freedom of conscience and religion;
2. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
3. freedom of peaceful assembly; and
4. freedom of association.

Section 1 of the Charter qualifies section 2. The rights and freedoms in the Charter can be subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” In March 2026, the Supreme Court heard four days from 13 appellants.¹ The appellants have argued that the Quebec national assembly has violated freedom of religion, as stated in s.2a, and exceeds its use of the notwithstanding section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Debate over Bill 21 has a precedent in the Supreme Court’s Ford decision on complete freedom of language (s.2b), French or English: “Language is so intimately related to the form and content of expression that there cannot be true freedom of expression by means of language if one is prohibited from using the language of one’s choice”.² Release of the Ford decision in December 1988 brought Quebec nationalists onto the streets; several anglophone ministers of the Quebec cabinet resigned. Quebec subsequently legislated a compromise in limiting use of English in commercial contexts. Despite the compromise, the Supreme Court decision was catalyst to secession in the second Quebec independence referendum in 1995.

The Supreme Court has yet to release their decision. At first reading, the Bill 21 case is straightforward. Appellants before the Supreme Court want to eliminate Bill 21; it is allegedly a case of racism and religious prejudice, defended by the Quebec assembly’s dubious use of s.33. Hopefully, the Supreme Court judges re-read what happened in the Ford case and “let sleeping dogs lie”. This case has the potential for a third secession referendum.

Public opinion research has indicated that the majority of francophone Québécois favour Bill 21. In a 2025 survey, the majority ranges from 54% to 58%, with the percent varying based on wording of the question. The majority of Quebec anglophones and those in other provinces clearly oppose Bill 21. The most affected by the legislation are professional Muslim women, banned from wearing a hijab while at work. Probably, those living outside Quebec consider Bill 21 as either trivial or an unjustified Islamophobic restriction of Muslims.

More than 120 years ago, the French law of 1905 enacted by the Government of France officially defined France as a secular or laïcité state.  The French law bans wearing “ostentatious” religious symbols in schools among students and teachers. In early 20^th century, the intent of the law was to reduce conflicts between Catholic and secular families, a debate prominent since 1789 and throughout the 19^th century. One dimension of the French revolution is the critique – among many – that the Catholic priesthood exercised too much political power. Over the 20^th century, the Catholic/secular debate has subsided. In early 21^st century, the Muslim/secular conflict has catalyzed a new debate. Salafist (fundamentalist) Sunni Muslims accept the imams’ literal instructions based on the Quran; on the other side, moderate Muslims realize that many instructions of the Quran should not be followed.

Clearly, the French secular law has influenced the Quebec government’s decision to legislate Bill 21. As in France, Muslim immigrants from the Maghreb and west African ex-French colonies have become an important religious minority in Quebec. In the 2021 census, there were 373,000 Muslims in Montreal. They now comprise 13% of the city’s metropolitan population. Québécois support of Bill 21 is not racism; it is fear that, over time, the Muslim community will not integrate with the secular culture among most Québécois. Muslim teachers are welcome to teach in the French school system for example, provided they respect the secular values implicit in Bill 21. However, several cases of Muslim teachers organizing prayers in their schools have generated considerable negative publicity.³ In the 1960s, an important dimension of the “quiet revolution” was the national assembly’s exercise of authority, as opposed to the previous Catholic hierarchy. Quebec now endorses its secular society. Some imams have exercised the equivalent of pre-1960s’ Catholic control of education.

In Europe and Quebec, radical imams advance variable interpretations of “Shariah law” – the obligation among believing Muslims to honour instructions in surah of the Quran and hadith. A prominent example advises Muslim women to exercise modesty – surah 24-31 "... And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands”. This surah and many hadith imply that Muslim women should wear clothing that does not attract attention from men, other than their husband. These surahs and hadith imply male authority. If Bill 21 violates freedom of religion, as prescribed in s.2a of the Canadian Charter, the Quran’s instructions can be interpreted as violating equal rights of men and women in s.28 of the Charter.

Not all Muslim women follow the Quran’s surah. There are vocal secular Muslim women who have integrated in Quebec. They support the social revolution in the 1960s; they support Bill 21, and insist on the equality of women and men. The conflict between individual religious freedom and respect for majority social values has emerged this century in all European countries. The “line in the sand” box (below) illustrates the Danish case among European countries, debating the same issues as have arisen in Quebec.

Admittedly, some devout Muslim women have emigrated from Quebec due to Bill 21. Farhat, a Muslim lawyer, wrote a public letter: “Either I remove my hijab and accept this flagrant violation of my rights under the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights and freedoms or I find another line of work.” Should Muslim women interpret Bill 21 as a flagrant violation of their religious right to follow instruction of the Quran? Should they interpret Bill 21 as respect of equal male and female rights in section 28 of the Canadian Charter?

In conclusion, Bill 21 does not ban the hiring of Muslim women; it simply requires Muslims in a professional capacity to remove religious symbols while at work. Why are imams in Quebec advising Muslim women to emigrate to another province due to the banning of “ostentatious” symbols for professional time at work? Why are imams not recommending Muslims to integrate in the Québécois culture – which values laïcité?

John Richards is an emeritus economics professor at Simon Fraser University. He has published many C.D. Howe Institute social policy monographs. Recently, he has published education monographs in Canada and South Asia. He is also the co-editor of Inroads, a Canadian policy journal.

[1] Among the most prominent of the 13 appellants are the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, National Council of Canadian Muslims, and World Sikh Organization of Canada.

[2] Supreme Court. Ford v. Quebec 1988, p.716.

Please email your feedback or suggestions on the Policy Brief to the editor: dale.eisler@uregina.ca