Since his 2018 inauguration, Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) leader and Quebec premier François Legault has prioritized secularization and the protection of Quebec’s francophone identity. His resignation in January 2026 has left the province in political uncertainty, particularly regarding Bill 21, which prohibits certain public servants—including police officers, judges, and teachers—from wearing religious symbols at work.
The bill was adopted through the notwithstanding clause, which allows the provincial government to override sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and prevents the Supreme Court from challenging Bill 21’s validity for the next five years. With Legault’s departure, Quebec faces a choice: Continue down a path that uses secularism as a pretext for exclusion, or seize this moment of political transition to address what Bill 21 truly represents. Far from being a neutral measure of secularism, Bill 21 functions as a legal tool that legitimizes systemic employment discrimination. Legault’s resignation removes the political figurehead most personally invested in defending this framework, making it both politically feasible and ethically necessary to re-examine whether Quebec’s commitment to secularism must come at the cost of systemic discrimination against religious minorities.
Quebec’s contemporary debates on secularism are rooted in sentiments dating back to the 1940s and 1950s, when the Catholic Church exercised significant influence over social and political life, administering schools, hospitals, and moral norms. The Quiet Revolution of the 1960s marked a decisive effort by Quebecois society to reduce religious influence and assert greater provincial control over public institutions. Although Bill 21 might function as a bulwark to limit religious impact on future governance, such objectives do not require the exclusion of religious minorities from public representation or employment.
The Bill disproportionately targets marginalized groups by banning visible religious symbols or clothing—including the hijab, the kippah, and the dastar. This comes as Islamophobia, xenophobia, and antisemitism are on the rise in Canada: Police-reported hate crimes targeting Muslims increased by 173 per cent from 2020 to 2024, and antisemitic hate crimes increased by 83 per cent from 2021 to 2023.
Compared to other provinces, Quebec has significantly higher levels of Islamophobia than the rest of Canada, with 56 per cent of Quebec residents reporting a negative view of Islam compared to 36 per cent outside of Quebec. This has forced religious minorities into an impossible position: Having to choose between removing required religious symbols, or giving up on a stable, public-sector job. State employment guarantees, on average, stability, security, better salary and retirement benefits. Bill 21, therefore, enforces structural inequality under a false sense of secularism and neutrality.
Furthermore, the bill creates symbolic exclusion, arbitrarily designating who is truly considered to have Quebecois Identity. As teachers, judges, and police officers embody public authority, the exclusion of religious minorities from these professions distances them from the province’s sphere of influence.
Bill 21 not only creates structural inequality in job opportunities but also in social representation. Montreal, the most diverse city in Quebec, reported that the city is approximately 11.9 per cent Muslim, 3.8 per cent Jewish, and 0.9 per cent Sikh in 2021. The bill does more than regulate religious symbols—it insinuates who the government believes belongs in Quebec’s public sector.
The use of the notwithstanding clause to preemptively override Charter protections further normalizes limiting minority rights and permits the bill to be passed without adherence to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The clause’s use signals that minority protection can easily be suspended for political goals, and encourages future restrictions.
Legault’s resignation offers Quebec’s next government a chance to chart a different course—one that doesn’t require the province to choose between secularism and inclusion.
