“The State’s duty of neutrality cannot prohibit religious citizens from accessing, on equal terms as others, a space that is publicly available for use. Rather, the duty must protect such equal treatment.”
On April 2, 2026, Québec passed Bill 9, An Act respecting the reinforcement of laicity in Québec, into law, invoking the notwithstanding clause of both the Québec Charter (section 53) and the Canadian Charter (section 33). Since Bill 9’s introduction in November 2025, Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) expressed concerns, alongside a number of other groups, about its restrictions on religious expression in the name of laïcité.
Although some amendments were adopted in response to these concerns raised, most of the Bill’s broadly worded restrictions persist and it remains to be seen exactly how this new law will be interpreted and applied in Québec.
During legislative debate, some government officials suggested that the Bill is merely intended to clarify the circumstances in which public spaces can be reserved for organized religious demonstrations or activities. However, the language of the Bill is not so circumscribed, and CLF remains deeply concerned that Bill 9 could impose far more expansive restrictions on many forms of otherwise lawful religious (and only religious) expression and activities.
As previously reported, CLF submitted a written brief to the Québec National Assembly Committee on Citizen Relations, expressing legal concerns about the ways that Bill 9 excludes openly religious individuals from public life and inverts the State’s duty of neutrality by requiring private citizens to abstain from religious expression (all briefs submitted to the Committee are available here). CLF is also concerned that restrictions targeting only religious expression – because it is religious – falls outside the provincial legislature’s jurisdiction, a view shared by others.
The Committee recommended a number of amendments to the Act (some of which are outlined below), which the Québec legislature adopted.
ENTRENCHING STATE LAICITY
Bill 9 expands the province’s ban on religious symbols (following Bill 21 and Bill 94) to include staff in certain childcare centres, youth protection, or health service roles. It also prohibits all “religious practice” in certain public spaces like colleges and universities (see ss. 10.1-10.3), bans “collective religious practice” in public parks and on public streets, sidewalks, and footpaths (see ss. 2 and 3), and revokes accreditation for subsidies for any private school whose teachings involve religious precepts or “the transmission of religious convictions or beliefs”, or that hires staff based on religious criteria (see ss. 22 and 23).
Bill 9 seeks to reinforce laicity in Québec, as enshrined in “Québec’s legal order” through Bill 21 (Act respecting the laicity of the State), which prohibits certain professionals in the public sector from wearing religious symbols. Bill 21 was recently challenged before the Supreme Court of Canada, where CLF intervened. A decision is pending in that litigation.
CLF is concerned that, by targeting religious activities (and only religious activities), Bill 9 restricts religious citizens from freely using public spaces on the same terms as others. This brings into even sharper focus what was already revealed in Bill 21: the doctrine of laïcité actually promotes an irreligious doctrine throughout society.
As CLF argued before the Supreme Court in March 2026, laïcité is being employed not merely as an internal government policy nor as a means of implementing the duty of religious neutrality, but to establish a markedly different doctrine for Québec society as a whole – one that effectively imposes irreligion on private citizens, rather than neutrality on the state and its institutions.
BAN ON ALL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IN certain PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
Under Bill 9, “all religious practice” is now banned in certain public institutions like public colleges and universities. Bill 9 defines “religious practice” very broadly to include “any action, except the wearing of a religious symbol, that may reasonably constitute, in fact or in appearance, the manifestation of a religious conviction or belief” (emphasis added).
Following the recommendations of the Committee, Bill 9 was amended to permit “religious practice” within four campus chapels named in the Act: (1) chapelle Loyola, situated in the territory of Concordia University; (2) chapelle Marie-Guyart, situated in the territory of Université Laval; (3) Birks Heritage Chapel, situated in the territory of McGill University; and (4) St. Mark’s Chapel, situated in the territory of Bishop’s University.
In addressing concerns on the scope of this provision, Minister Roberge noted that spaces reserved for student associations in colleges and universities should not be “transform[ed] … into places of worship”, or “turn[ed] … into places of religious segregation, places of segregation based on sex or gender” (unofficial translation).
While the Minister’s comments suggest that the Bill is intended to narrowly target a very specific concern or activity, the wording of the legislation is not tailored to address the aforementioned circumstances. That is, Bill 9 does not target any specific action in itself, nor does it target discriminatory acts (which are already restricted by the Québec Charter). Rather, it broadly targets the religious nature of “any action”.
CLF’s concerns therefore persist: this provision might be enforced to unfairly marginalize and exclude religious minorities from freely accessing and using public spaces on equal terms with non-religious individuals, thereby hindering religion and favouring irreligion, contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada’s directive in Saguenay:
“... the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs. The state must instead remain neutral in this regard. This neutrality requires that the state neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief. It requires that the state abstain from taking any position and thus avoid adhering to a particular belief.”
A close review of the legislative debates surrounding Bill 9 is important, and a number of attempts to clarify the provisions were offered by government officials. For example, on the issue of campus ministry, Minister Roberge stated that offering spiritual guidance and support is not prohibited, so long as such services do not “discriminate against people based on their beliefs” (unofficial translation). Thus, Bill 9 requires every personnel member of a public body (including public universities) to “act, in the exercise of their functions, so as not to treat a person favourably or unfavourably because of the person’s religious affiliation or non-affiliation, because of their own religious convictions or beliefs or the absence of such religious convictions or beliefs, or because of the religious convictions or beliefs of a person in authority or the absence of such religious convictions or beliefs” (see s. 3).
It will be important that this requirement apply equally to all public decision makers and administrators in their treatment of religious groups. Student unions and university administrators, for example, must not discriminate against voluntary student clubs and associations solely based on their religious affiliation. It is CLF’s view that discriminating against religious groups in this regard would actually contradict the principles which laicity is said to be based on (including the equality of all citizens, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion – see s. 2 of Bill 21).
Again, it remains to be seen how Bill 9 will be interpreted and applied by front line decision makers in practice, and CLF will be actively engaged in monitoring and responding to developments in this regard.
BAN ON COLLECTIVE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IN PUBLIC PARKS AND ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS AND FOOTPATHS
Bill 9 sets a prohibition on all “collective religious practice” within any public parks or on public streets, sidewalks, and footpaths, “unless a municipality authorizes, exceptionally and on a case-by-case basis, such a use in its public domain”. The term “collective” is not defined, but “religious practice” is given the same broad definition as quoted above.
An earlier version of Bill 9 required that such authorization be granted by “resolution of the municipal council”, however, it was amended to remove this additional requirement. Minister Roberge acknowledged it was “somewhat heavy-handed and excessive”, adding a “burden” on municipalities that could “politicize the process” (unofficial translation). Municipalities may now have the option to use an administrative approvals process without involving city council.
However, even without this requirement, there remains a general ban on “collective religious practice” unless exceptional government pre-approval is granted, following separate conditions for approving collective religious (and only religious) activities in public spaces (s. 2). Such approval “may” be granted only where the activity does not compromise human safety, is of short duration, is accessible to all/non-discriminatory, and does not unduly impede access to the public domain (s. 3).
ANALYSIS
The stated purpose of Bill 9 is “to foster and promote living together, in coherence with the national integration model, with respect for every person’s freedom of conscience and freedom of religion” (emphasis added).
As CLF explained in its brief, the State’s duty of neutrality cannot generally prohibit religious citizens from accessing, on equal terms as others, a space that is publicly available for use. Rather, the duty must protect such equal treatment. This is what “respect for every person’s conscience and freedom of religion” truly requires.
Bill 9 effectively inverts the State’s duty of neutrality by requiring private citizens to generally abstain from collective religious activities in public spaces, unless exceptionally permitted. This is not promoting the neutrality of the state, but imposing irreligion on the citizenry – at least in many public spaces.
Again, it remains to be seen how the Bill is enforced and applied. Minister Roberge’s comments during the legislative debate suggest that it is intended to apply somewhat narrowly, to address “organized and spontaneous demonstrations [which] take over … a public space without authorization to turn it into a place of worship”. He added, “we’re not talking about ‘never allowed’ here, but rather about setting clear parameters so that this is properly regulated to foster better living together”. He went on to add that the targeted activity is one that is “not accessible to everyone, that monopolizes public space” (unofficial translations).
Despite these reassurances as to the Bill’s intended (and limited) scope, the legislative text is not circumscribed in this way; rather, it sets a general prohibition on any collective religious practice, listing only “exceptional” circumstances under which municipal permission “may” be granted. Moreover, serious questions persist regarding the asserted necessity of these provisions, given that representatives of municipal authorities indicated in their legislative submissions the availability of existing tools for addressing such concerns.
Ultimately, under Bill 9, religious expression and activities are subjected to greater legal burdens and restrictions than non-religious expression and activities. This disparity raises serious constitutional concerns.
WHAT’S NEXT
CLF continues to call on the Québec government to embrace a more inclusive vision of state laicity as articulated in Canada’s human rights jurisprudence, and to “strike the right balance so that our diverse society remains inclusive” as Minister Roberge stated (unofficial translation).
Properly understood, religious equality (specifically affirmed as a foundational principle of state laicity in the Act respecting the laicity of the State) includes the right of religious individuals and groups to access physical spaces on the same terms as others, without additional restrictions based solely on their religion.
A general prohibition on certain forms of religious expression, with additional requirements for approving only religious practices in public spaces, represents a marked departure from what religious neutrality requires in a free and democratic society.
Individuals are not required to be religiously neutral – the government is. This is precisely why CLF intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada earlier this year in the constitutional challenge to Bill 21. As we await the Court's decision, CLF remains committed to defending freedom of religion, expression, peaceful assembly, and association, and to working constructively with both government and non-government groups in order to do so. CLF remains committed to advocating for the full and equal protection of religious citizens and expression in public life, in Québec and across Canada.
LEARN MORE
CLF’s advocacy on religious freedom and equality in Québec
CLF’s oral argument in the constitutional challenge to Bill 21
Read CLF’s report on Bill 9 and its Brief to the Québec National Assembly Committee on Citizen Relations (English/Français)
Read CLF’s analysis of Bill 9 and Québec’s restrictions on prayer
Read CLF Executive Director Derek Ross’s column on Bill 9 in the Montreal Gazette
CLF’s intervention factum in the Bill 21 litigation (Supreme Court of Canada)
CLF’s position on the constitutional challenge to Bill 21
CLF’s intervention in the challenge to Québec’s 2023 ban of student-initiated religious practices on school grounds
CLF’s defence of religious groups’ access to public services and spaces in Québec
CLF’s support of “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose in Québec and Canada