Act respecting the laicity of the State

The Parti Québécois in 2013 under Premier Pauline Marois proposed the Quebec Charter of Values, a law banning the display of "ostentatious" religious symbols, but they were unable to pass it before losing an election some months thereafter.[9]

An act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for requests for accommodations on religious grounds in certain bodies,[10] introduced as Bill 62 and passed by Premier Philippe Couillard's Liberal government in October 2017 made world headlines.[11][10] The law banned a person whose face is covered from delivering or receiving a public service.[10] Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée stated that people could seek religious exemption on a "case by case" basis.[12]

The ban has worried some conservative Muslims who consider face covering a necessary part of their religion [13] and have defined the move as Islamophobia.[14] Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke out against it.[15] Several scholars have also criticised the ban.[10] The ban was challenged by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the National Council of Canadian Muslims in the Quebec Superior Court.[14] Meanwhile, the Parti Québécois (PQ) and the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) argued the ban was not extensive enough.[10] Some journalists accused Couillard of supporting the ban for “perceived political advantage,”[10] while a majority of the general public expressed their support for this move.[16]

With regards to public opinion, an October 27 Ipsos poll found that 76 per cent of Quebecers backed Bill 62, with 24 per cent opposing it. The same survey found the 68 per cent of Canadians in general supported a law similar to Bill 62 in their part of Canada.[17] An October 27 Angus Reid Institute poll found that 70 per cent Canadians outside of Quebec supported "legislation similar to Bill 62" where they lived in the country, with 30 per cent opposing it.[18]

Several legal challenges were filed against the law and a judge ruled that the face-covering ban cannot be applicable while analysis by another court, because of irreversible injury it may cause some women of the Muslim faith. Another judge granted an injunction on that section questioned in court by the National Council of Canadian Muslims with the participation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. In the judgment of the court, said section contravenes the freedoms guaranteed by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[19]

The Quebec Liberal Party government confirmed that it would not appeal that suspension of the key article of its Religious Neutrality Act. The Government of Quebec preferred to wait for a judgement on the substance and constitutionality of the law.[20]

If the Liberal government had been re-elected in the general election on October 1, 2018, Premier Philippe Couillard said he would be ready to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, if necessary, to defend Bill 62.[21] From his previous comments on the matter, Couillard was not likely to preserve the face covering ban by invoking section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause.[22] Couillard stated that his government, in passing Bill 62, did not use the notwithstanding clause by design, asserting that the court would uphold his government’s limited ban as reasonable and justified.[23]

The Quebec Liberal Party said the law would go too far, particularly in respect to Muslim women, and continued to advocate a ban only on religious clothing which covered the face, such as the niqab. Québec solidaire said that it was opposed to any ban on the wearing of religious symbols.[24] Quebec Liberal leadership candidate, Dominique Anglade, argued that “We are all in favour of secularism, but not the way it was done with Bill 21.”[25] The Parti Québécois said the ban did not go far enough, and that it should have been extended to public daycare workers, as in its proposed legislation.[6]

Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor, authors of the Bouchard-Taylor report on reasonable accommodations, raised concern that the law makes the province not look like a “decent society” and will only feed an intolerance toward minorities.[26][27]

Various forms of resistance to Bill 21 have emerged since its inception. Some are the legal challenges described below. The Coalition Inclusion Quebec is taking legal action on the basis that Bill 21 specifically targets Muslim women.[28] The Coalition Inclusion Quebec is challenging the use of the notwithstanding clause because it cannot be used against Section 28 of the Charter, regarding gender discrimination. Another court case is being filed by the English Montreal School Board on the basis of violating minority language rights.[29] Calgary City Council voted unanimously to condemn Bill 21 with former mayor Naheed Nenshi, urging other municipal governments to speak out against Bill 21.[30]

Prior to the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, Quebec was heavily influenced by the Catholic Church, including the education system. The arrangement was unpopular, with many older Quebeckers later reporting negative experiences while in school. People saw the role of the church as a "necessary step on the road to modernity, to building a secular, more egalitarian society, freed from the evils of superstition". Religion came to be seen as a social construct that society and people can choose to adopt or to disregard.[31][32]

David Rand wrote in a CBC News collum that the law is a positive step forward in ensuring the religious neutrality of the state. He explained that in the culture of Quebec, religion is a private matter and that members of the civil service must be neutral while at work. Similar to existing legislation which prohibits employees from wearing partisan political symbols on the job. Bill 21 extends the principle to religious symbols. It does not ban religious believers from government jobs but instead excludes only their religious symbols if they are in positions of authority, and only while on the job. The bill intends to eliminate and perceived religious favouritism and protect freedom of conscience for users of government services by ensuring they are not subjected to unnecessary displays religion.[33]

A 2019 poll conducted by Forum Research reported the law enjoyed 64 per cent support in Quebec.[34]

Bill 21 was debated in the 2019 federal election. Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet stated this was a provincial matter and not relevant to the federal government's jurisdiction but did campaign in favour of Bill 21.[35] When explaining why being called a nationalist to Canada Press is not seen a pejorative, Joseph Yvon Thériault, a sociology professor at University of Quebec at Montreal, compared Bill 21 to stricter legislation to European countries such as France and Belgium as an argument that Quebec nationalism is based on moderation.[36]