The Quebec government has released plans for a “values charter” that would impose unique-in-North America restrictions on religious clothing for employees at all government institutions starting with schools, hospitals and courts.
If adopted by the legislature, the sweeping plan would apply to the hijabs, kippas, turbans and large crucifixes worn by more religious public servants.
It would impose a career-vs-faith dilemma for civil authorities like judges, police, and prosecutors; public daycare workers; teachers and school employees; hospital workers; municipal personnel; and employees at state-run liquor stores and the auto-insurance board.
The minister responsible presented the plan as a guarantor of equality, under a secular state.
“The time has come to unite us around clear values and common rules,” said minister Bernard Drainville.
“This is measured, balanced. Quebec is increasingly a multiethnic, multireligious society. This is a great source of richness. It’s also why we need clear rules.”
The proposal was swiftly slammed by much of the political class.
The federal government said it will seek the advice of the Department of Justice and then head to court if the proposal is deemed to violate fundamental rights. Both major Montreal mayoral candidates also vigorously condemned the idea.
The Parti Quebecois government was revealing its suggestions Tuesday at the provincial legislature, 13 months after making an election pledge to introduce a charter for secularism.
Not all forms of secularism would be treated equally, however.
The giant crucifix above Montreal’s Mount Royal — and the one looming over the legislature chamber — will be spared under the logic that they are integral to Quebec’s cultural history: “The crucifix is there to stay, in the name of history, in the name of heritage,” Drainville said.
Low-level employees who wear a visible crucifix, however, would have to tuck them away. As would those wearing hijabs, burkas, kippas, veils and turbans.
Drainville grappled with questions about other inconsistencies.
Would elected officials be subject to these rules? No, he replied, arguing that voters have a right to choose their representative. That means people could, in theory, elect a cabinet minister or premier with a hijab — who would then force junior employees to remove theirs.
What about courtroom witnesses and elected politicians who, in this staunchly secular state, must swear an oath on that decidedly non-secular document, the Bible? Drainville appeared caught off-guard by the question: “Oh, my God,” he replied, slowly, “we’ll get back to you.”
And how about city council meetings which begin with prayers, in places like Saguenay? Would they be allowed? Drainville declined to answer the question.
He also brushed off a suggestion that his plan would add to the bureaucracy. One news report said the advertising plan, alone, will cost the government $1.9 million.
Institutions could be spared from the rules if they obtain an opt-out clause, applicable for five years. The five-year exemption would need to be adopted by an institution’s board of directors or by the local city council.
Drainville stressed that the opt-out clause is designed only as an intermediary measure and should not be used by institutions to “systematically” exempt themselves.
While past polls have suggested such an idea could be popular in Quebec, a number of politicians immediately voiced their opposition Tuesday.
Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney said Justice Department lawyers will be consulted and, if the plan is found to violate fundamental freedoms, “we will defend those rights vigorously.”
Montreal mayoral candidates Denis Coderre and Marcel Cote were also unsparing in their criticism.
As it stands, for now, the plan is hypothetical.
The minority PQ government cannot pass legislation without support from one other party and it has said it will seek to build consensus with them.
One opposition party, the Coalition, has proposed a scaled-back version of what the PQ wants while the bigger opposition party, the Liberals, is more steadfastly opposed.
The PQ idea flows from an election promise to bar people from wearing religious clothing like hijabs and kippas while working in government institutions.
The party has been emphasizing hot-button identity issues since it was drubbed in the 2007 provincial election. In that election the PQ finished behind the conservative, populist, and now-defunct Action democratique du Quebec.
Some pundits now speculate that the PQ might be trying to drag out the “charter” debate to make Quebec’s identity — and not other issues, like the economy or social services — the heart of the next election campaign.
Institutions could request a “reasonable accommodation” if they can satisfy four conditions — the accommodation must prevent discrimination, must satisfy gender equality, must be reasonable, and must not affect personal safety.
Ottawa ready to challenge charter in court: Kenney
OTTAWA — It’s not often top Tory cabinet minister Jason Kenney reads from prepared notes, or cuts questions short on two of his favourite subjects — multiculturalism and religious freedom.
But Quebec’s proposed values charter appears to have the Conservative government choosing its words with care.
Kenney said Tuesday that should the legislation pass, the federal Justice Department would study it for any potential violations of the constitutional right to freedom of religion, and mount a legal challenge if necessary.
“We are very concerned by any proposal that would limit the ability of Canadians to participate in our society, and that would affect the practice of their faith,” said Kenney. “We are very concerned about any proposal that would discriminate unfairly against people based on their religion, based their deepest convictions.”
Kenney did not expand on any specific criticisms that his government has with the proposal, taking a limited number of questions after delivering a statement. Infrastructure Minister Denis Lebel, who gave the government’s position in French, took no questions.
Similarly, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird had little to say on Quebec’s proposal two weeks ago as he opened the government’s new Office of Religious Freedom — a program focused on protecting religious minorities abroad.
The Parti Quebecois’ charter would emphasize the separation of church and state in the province by banning the wearing of obvious religious symbols by public-sector workers.
Recent polls suggest a majority of Quebecers support the measures — a fact that would not go unnoticed by federal party leaders looking to feather their electoral beds before 2015.
But the support the Conservative party has painstakingly nurtured among Indo-Canadians and the Jewish community in particular makes the situation much more complex.
Over the years, the Conservative government has taken different approaches and positions to accommodating religious symbols and practices.
Three months ago, Kenney used the word “ridiculous” in reference to a ban on turbans by the Quebec Soccer Federation. In 2011, he criticized some Parti Quebecois members for supporting a ban on Sikhs wearing the kirpan from entering the National Assembly.
In an interview with The Canadian Press in 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper rejected the notion that Canada is facing a crisis involving newcomers that don’t accept the nation’s values.
“I know there’s a popularly expressed view that immigrants come here and they should change to suit the country. I think they overwhelmingly do,” Harper said.
“But I think the fact is our country also consciously changes somewhat for new immigrants and new cultures, and I think that’s a successful model. I think it you look around the world for issues of immigration and cultural integration, Canada is as successful as any other country in this regard.”
But Harper’s government has also prohibited Muslim women from covering their faces while taking the oath of citizenship, a move that garnered support from certain Muslim-Canadian groups.
“Isolating and separating a group of Canadians or allowing that group to hide their faces while they are becoming members of our community is completely counter to Canada’s commitment to openness and social cohesion,” Kenney said at the time.
In 2007, the Conservatives also pushed the idea of requiring Muslim women to show their faces when voting, and over time received the backing of all federal parties.
When Tory MP Stephen Blaney, now public safety minister, rekindled the effort to make the requirement a law in a private member’s bill, Kenney lent his support.
As immigration minister, Kenney also unveiled a new citizenship guide in 2009 that warned newcomers against “barbaric” cultural practices such as genital mutilation and honour killings that would result in criminal charges.
“It’s no secret that we’ve seen instances of culturally rooted abuse of women, so-called ’honour killings,’ forced marriages, and spousal abuse, and even female genital mutilation,” Kenney said.
“We want to make sure that people understand that multiculturalism doesn’t create an excuse to engage in those barbaric cultural practices.”
What people are saying
‘We are very concerned by any proposal that would limit the ability of Canadians to participate in our society, and that would affect the practice of their faith . . . We are very concerned about any proposal that would discriminate unfairly against people based on their religion, based their deepest convictions.’
— Jason Kenney, Tory cabinet minister
‘For now, suffice it say that the text confirms our worst fears . . . We’re categorical in rejecting this approach. Human rights don’t have a best-before date, they’re not temporary and they’re not a popularity contest. To be told that a woman working in a day care centre because she’s wearing a head scarf will lose her job is to us intolerable in our society.’
— Tom Mulcair, NDP Leader
‘We just want to reassure the people living in ontario that this is not what the province of ontario is going to do, and to really emphasize that we value their diversity, we value their culture, and we’re supportive of it.’
— Monte Kwinter, Ontario MPP
‘I think most Canadians find it offensive at the idea of creating a barrier and obstacle for people of different faiths to not be able to engage in that public sphere. I think that’s what really makes us separate from the rest of the world’
— Jagmeet Singh, Ontario MPP
‘How can you differentiate between human beings like, oh, if you are part of a municipality, it will be OK if they opt out of it but if you work for a ministry it won’t be? If you’re in a private school, you can wear a veil if you want but if you work in public (schools) you can’t.’
— Francoise Boivin, NDP Justice critic
‘For Us at the federal level, we’re going to work on something that makes us together, (rather) than to divide us.’
— Djaoudia Sellah, Suburban Montreal MP