Four weeks of National Assembly hearings into religious neutrality have once again failed to bring political parties in Quebec to a consensus.
Rather, the hearings ended Tuesday with the Liberals, Parti Québécois and Coalition Avenir Québec basically sticking to their respective positions on the place of religion and minorities in the province.
Bill 62 aims to bar people from wearing face coverings when giving or receiving a public service, and proposes guidelines for religious accommodations.
The bill is a lighter version of the PQ’s 2013 controversial charter of Quebec values, which, if adopted, would have banned all ostentatious religious symbols from the public service.
“I think that, right now, the proposal with Bill 62 is that religious signs will be permitted, including the chador, for all people, including people in a position of authority, like policewomen and teachers,” Coalition Avenir Québec Leader François Legault said Tuesday. “We think it’s unacceptable and it doesn’t go far enough.”
Groups taking part in the public consultations were also divided. The human rights commission argued the bill goes too far, is useless and possibly discriminatory, since its ban on niqabs and burkas indirectly targets Muslim women.
On Tuesday, former PQ candidate and author Djemila Benhabib, as well as prominent lawyer Julie Latour, maintained that allowing civil servants to wear ostentatious religious symbols at work is taking a major step back.
“Why did we deconfessionalize schools ... if only to backtrack years later?” Benhabib asked.
The Commission scolaire de Montréal said it welcomes government guidelines for religious accommodations, given the board handles on average 500 requests a year (such as requests for days off) that end up costing it $150,000 annually, or the equivalent of three special education teaching posts, said CSDM president Catherine Harel Bourdon.
“It creates a climate of tension when other teachers have to step in to do emergency replacements,” she said.
Premier Philippe Couillard further defended the bill Tuesday: “We feel that for reasons not of religion, but of communication, identification and security, I must see your face when you talk to me, and vice versa. That’s the only thing we’re saying. I think it’s reasonable.”
“We have absolutely no objections for people to wear kippahs, scarves or crosses ... We said we have to define accommodations, which we’re doing,” Couillard said.
Bill 62 still has to undergo a clause-by-clause study before it can pass in the house.