Absurd, racist, primordial, xenophobic, necessary, backwards, vital; reaction to Quebec’s tightening and broadening of its secularism legislation varies widely depending on where you’re sitting.
Last month, the Quebec government introduced Bill 94, expanding on its 2019 law Bill 21, which banned visible religious symbols for certain state employees such as teachers, principals, judges, prosecutors, and police. (The Supreme Court announced in January it will hear a constitutional challenge to Bill 21, originally passed with the pre-emptive use of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ section 33—the notwithstanding clause—which the government plans to invoke again for Bill 94.) The new bill also amends Quebec’s Education Act to enforce secularism.
This, in the wake of the ‘Bedford Affair’, which sparked widespread controversy over reports of sectarian conflict among staff at a Montreal school, alleged influence by a local Muslim community centre, gender inequality, and denial of services to students with learning difficulties.
Seventeen additional schools were flagged, and an education ministry investigation produced a report detailing inconsistent rule enforcement, unexamined religious leave impacting students and staff, violations of the ban on prayers and religious activities, and reports of staff balking at enforcement over fears “of being accused of racism or association with the far right.”
“The report demonstrates that there are grey areas that we must clarify” said education minister Bernard Drainville, “One thing is clear: this report requires a strong response from us and that is what we are going to do.
While Quebecers generally support separating religion and state, incidents like ritual ablutions in classrooms, prayer rooms in public colleges, and repots of fully veiled students have reignited debates over secularism.
Bill 94 extends Bill 21 restrictions to all staff and volunteers working with children in schools in the public system—including librarians, lab techs, support workers, and secretaries—banning kippahs, hijabs, turbans, or visible religious symbols like crucifixes or the Star of David. The law does not apply to bus drivers. Employees working when the law was adopted, March 27, 2019, may wear such items but cannot transfer positions while doing so. The only private school measure is a prohibition on complete face coverings. The law also seeks to reduce holiday leave for staff and students, and explicitly bans prayer rooms, while increasing government oversight of education standards.
Before Drainville introduced his new legislation, secularism minister Jean-François Roberge struck a committee to gauge adherence to secularism and religious neutrality in state institutions, document any religious influences within institutions, and provide recommendations. Vowing “to go further to develop our model and protect our values,” he recently suggested the ban could extend to CEGEPS and public daycares. Family minister Suzanne Roy confirmed this would apply only to future employees, due to the high number of current staff wearing religious attire, i.e., women with hijabs, and Quebec’s ongoing daycare worker shortage. The committee will report by August 20, 2025.
CIJA submits net positive view
At a National Assembly committee, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) welcomed the bill, noting in its brief, “The future of our society depends in large part on the well-being of our children. So, faced with the problem of some people not respecting common values, we believe it was necessary to legislate.”
Jews in the province share with their fellow citizens a set of values that characterize Quebec society, according to the submission by CIJA’s Quebec vice-president Eta Yudin, that is, “protection of individual rights and freedoms, equality between men and women, freedom of conscience and opinion, and the neutrality of the State in religious matters.”
Quebecers and Jewish Canadians are seeing increasing antisemitism, as part of a worldwide phenomenon, manifested in extremist political groups “from the far right to the far left, including Islamic extremists” according to the CIJA submission. “It is not only the Jewish community that is under attack today, but also Quebec society as a whole, its values and its way of life. Beyond our borders, Western democracies and our shared values are facing unprecedented threats… In the face of hatred, intolerance, radicalization, misinformation, polarization and external pressure from radical elements on public schools, action is urgently needed.”
“That’s why we welcome Bill 94’s objective of reinforcing democratic and Quebec values within the education system,” reads the brief, “including equality between women and men, and the secular nature of the State.” CIJA lauded the prohibition of face coverings and proposed adding “any form of hatred” to a list of motivations for intimidation or violence for students to be protected from, that includes racism, sexual orientation, sexual or gender identity, homophobia, disability or physical characteristic,” something Drainville said he was open to.
Hier, nos collègues @EmmanuelleFAmar et @yharrouche1 sont venus présenter en consultations particulières le mémoire du CIJA concernant le projet de loi 94. Vous pouvez consulter leur présentation en cliquant sur le lien ci-dessous.
— Le CIJA (@CIJAQC) April 11, 2025
Nous tenons aussi à souligner le soutien… pic.twitter.com/0krKfG6TTq
CIJA also called for extra protections for school staff from intimidation or reprisals when enforcing the rules, in parallel with Quebec’s existing anti-bullying plan, noting “incidents of bullying and violence against Jewish students in public schools have risen sharply since October 7, 2023. All too often, those involved in such cases in public schools either don’t understand or are reluctant to treat these cases of antisemitism as they would other cases of bullying. These cases “must not be perceived as ‘opinion disputes between students.’ We therefore recommend that amendments be made to Bill 94 to strengthen and better enforce the plan to deal with cases of hate-motivated bullying.”
The organization opposed, however, the prohibition on religious accommodations related to compulsory school attendance. While acknowledging the importance of regular attendance, CIJA’s Quebec director of policy and research Emmanuelle Amar, argues a total ban on religious leave accommodations, without exception, “is neither realistic nor reasonable.” Instead, said Amar, they propose a “reasonable accommodation” of 7-10 days per school year for religious observance, which balances priority of education with the need for inclusion and respect of religious diversity.
Drainville asked how that could be applied, and if allowing such accommodation could be seen as “unreasonable,” Amar suggesting the government could oblige parents to declare days of absence to school staff at the beginning of the year, “thus ensuring greater predictability.” CIJA’s Quebec director of government relations Yannis Harrouche told Drainville that state secularism applies to state employees, “but students are not employees of the state, so that’s why this principle necessarily does not extend to them. You, as legislators, have to find a solution that makes it possible to respect what we consider to be individual rights and also to ensure that the education system as a whole works properly.”
The views of two local rabbis
Rabbi Lisa Grushcow of Montreal’s Temple Emanu-El-Beth Sholom, says Bill 94, like its predecessor, “is deeply against the other values we share as Canadians and Quebecers. The fact that this plays out against women and religious minorities, that it limits people’s opportunities in a time when we really should be focusing on how people integrate and live together, and work together and learn from each other, it just seems to be a step in the absolutely wrong direction.”
Indeed, there is bullying and antisemitism in schools that needs addressing, she told The CJN, “but that hasn’t had anything to do with what teachers or janitors are wearing. You want schools that have people from across the spectrum of religious society. You don’t want situations where public schools either become dominated by one group or are no-go zones for others. Those are the risks that I see happening right now.”
She says the Jewish community has a choice of separating itself from other religious minorities “or seeing where we have common cause. And I think right now there’s an instinct towards insularity and towards protecting ourselves, because the situation has been so awful for Jews in Quebec and Canada since October 7. Believe me, I feel that in my gut as much as everybody else. But I don’t think the answer is to say, ‘Oh, well, we’re different. This isn’t about us’.” History she says, “shows us that it’s never a good answer, either morally or strategically, to throw other minorities under the bus, and it’s really hard to hold that position right now because the Jewish community has been and has felt really abandoned.”
Chevra Kadisha’s Rabbi Asher Jacobson has a different take. President of the Rabbinical Council of Canada, which has not taken an official stance on the legislation, he says his own view is that “What we’re seeing are knee-jerk reactions of many minority organizations, and protests that people think this is violating their religious rights; but people generally need to make the distinction between religious freedom and religious oppression.”
“If we take a view from above and try to understand what’s really going on, we see that the Quebec government is not looking to start battles with religious minorities.” Instead, he told The CJN, “I actually think they’re reacting to a challenge that many liberal democracies in the West have been facing in the last decade or so.”
Quebecers are unique in that they have very vivid memories of what religious coercion looks like, he says, “and they rejected that. The distinction between religion and state became something deeply solidified in society,” he says, adding Quebecers are no longer seeing religion remaining at home or in houses of worship, but spilling into the public domain where it can lead to intimidation. “Of course, I believe religious freedom must be upheld and respected—most people understand that,” he says, but suggests the government is trying “to balance inherent religious rights with the need to protect minorities from groups aiming to impose their doctrine.” The Bedford affair, he says, is a template for that.
Referencing the halachic principle of dina d’malkuta dina (one must abide by the laws of the land where one lives,) Rabbi Jacobson says, “If you feel a law oppresses you, take action to fight it—appeal it.” But he contrasts this with religions that seek to impose beliefs on non-believers, calling it evangelical and a growing challenge for liberal democracies. “We are seeing extremists who feel it is their duty to impose their way of life. Anyone who denies it is not living in reality. We see it throughout Europe and now we’re seeing it in North America. Governments that don’t take a stand and control this will pay a very heavy price.”
State secularism vs. religious expression
B’nai Brith Canada’s regional director for Quebec and Atlantic Canada Henry Topas says the state secularism laws force people to choose between religious practices and their careers. “It betrays the values set forth in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including principles of equality and the freedoms of conscience and religion.”
Even before its adoption, Topas told The CJN, B’nai Brith raised concerns, noting Quebec had the highest number of antisemitic incidents in Canada. “Since October 7, 2023, these numbers have reached untenable levels. We welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the English Montreal School Board’s challenge, and we look forward to their decision in this matter which we hope will send a very clear message.”
In January, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear a court challenge against Bill 21 by the English Montreal School Board (EMSB), the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette vowed to defend the law “until the end,” calling it vital for Quebec to be able to make its own choices, “choices that correspond to our history, to our distinct social values and the aspirations of our nation.”
“Bill 94 is a bad idea at a bad time” says EMSB chair Joe Ortona whose board serves some 35,000 students in 73 schools and centres. “We are already dealing with a shortage of teachers across the province. Finding people to do all the other jobs necessary to ensure our students have all the support they need is equally challenging. Bill 94 will impact every educator and student in Quebec negatively… We maintain our original position that Bill 21, and now Bill 94, conflicts with our values and our mission and with those of all Quebecers as expressed in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Its very adoption was contrary to our societal goal of promoting our peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic Quebec.”
Push to expand secularism laws just political ‘dog whistles,’ EMSB’s Joe Ortona says https://t.co/9SPdathyt4 pic.twitter.com/mVa6pA2t4h
— Montreal Gazette (@mtlgazette) March 1, 2025
Ortona’s colleague Julien Feldman has been particularly robust in condemning the legislation and says his opposition to attacks on Charter rights is a legacy of his own family’s experience in Nazi Germany. He says Bill 94, is like Bill 21, in that when it first passed, “I understood immediately that Bill 21 would become a five-alarm fire for the Jewish community. Premier Legault wasn’t just threatening the autonomy of public schools, his simple objective was to compel the entire school system to teach and normalize the intolerance and exclusion Jewish communities fear.”
At a March 20 press conference, Drainville said “The overall idea is to protect students from any religious indoctrination, any religious influence” and that includes “the way you present yourself to the students… It’s not a question of a threat. It’s a question of principle. The school system should provide for a safe space from religious influence or religious presence. This is a choice that we’ve made as a society.”
Rabbi Lisa Grushcow emphasizes that wearing religious garb isn’t about imposing authority but reflects a notion of “commandedness”—the idea that religious practice shapes daily life, including dress. “So we’re not talking about people who are religious authorities foisting anything on anybody else. We’re talking about people expressing their personal religious understanding and practice in a way that at best, can lead to questions and conversation and learning more about each other. If I see somebody wearing a hijab, I don’t know their politics. I don’t know their thoughts on being Canadian or being Quebecois. I just know that this is something that they’re wearing as part of their religious practice, just as I don’t want to be judged when I wear my Magen David or my kippah.”
For his part, education minister Bernard Drainville is betting people can be convinced to comply, challenging the notion that “a Jewish future teacher would not want to remove his religious symbol during teaching hours. The fact is that when you say to someone ‘The law forbids it, you need to remove it,’ in certain documented cases they accept to remove it during working hours. So, there is a space there to convince someone to do it.”
