It was the kind of intellectual confrontation Bernard Drainville fully expected, but the witness stood her ground after telling the minister a hijab is part of her identity.
On the opening day of hearings into Bill 60, creating a Charter of Quebec Values, a first group representing immigrants rocked the Parti Québécois government’s boat by saying the proposed legislation goes too far and violates their fundamental freedoms.
“Let me tell you our position, which will probably not please you at all,” a frank-talking Samira Laouni told the committee off the top of her presentation. “Forcing us to choose between our identity and employment is, in our mind, a very odious choice, indeed.”
She went further, warning a ban on religious symbols in the public sector would have sweeping consequences and even impoverish certain communities by throwing them out of work.
Already, minority communities are experiencing “collateral damage” from the values debate as they get the feeling the society that welcomed them to Quebec now asks them to “erase aspects of their identity,” Laouni said.
And she took on detractors who say the veil she was wearing for the hearings — a first at the committee — is a sign she was being dominated.
“I think I wouldn’t be here today if someone was forcing me to wear it,” she fired back. “I don’t want to be alarmist, but in my entourage, nobody would leave it off (for the sake of a job).”
And so began a three-month debate into the proposed charter, one that will dominate the province’s political agenda and could even wind up becoming a central theme of an election.
Drainville kicked off the process first thing in the morning with a firm message. He announced that while he’s hoping for a respectful debate, the part of the bill that proposes to ban conspicuous religious symbols like hijabs, kippas, turbans and large crucifixes from the public sector is fundamental and not negotiable.
He argued it constitutes a “just, moderate and balanced position,” in the government’s bid to create a secular environment.
“To be credible, this neutrality has to be visible, apparent, concrete,” Drainville argued. “For this religious neutrality to be real, it has to be expressed through people.
“If the state is neutral, its agents must be neutral.”
He returned to the theme in an exchange with Laouni, who represents the Organisme de communication pour l’ouverture et le rapprochement interculturel (COR), questioning why the group’s brief agrees with a partial ban on religious symbols for authority figures like police officers.
He started building on the theme earlier, noting that in the National Assembly, three of four parties are in favour of some form of ban.
“The disagreement is not on the idea of banning or not, but the range of application,” Drainville ventured.
Unrattled, Laouni responded: “The answer is simple, they are uniformed.”
She added, tongue in cheek, “Maybe one day in Quebec, we’ll all wind up with a Mao Zedong dress code and then we’ll all look the same and there won’t be any more problems for anyone.”
It was by far the roughest moment of the day for Drainville, who faces the prospect of weeks of acrimonious debate about an emotional issue, plus daily exposure to a hostile Liberal opposition in the person of critic Marc Tanguay.
Tanguay blasted Drainville in his opening remarks, saying the bill is designed to divide Quebecers for electoral reasons.
“We will not trade off our liberties for votes or political calculations,” Tanguay said.
Tanguay had his own troubles. After saying in December he would welcome a party candidate who wore a chador, a cloak which covers a woman’s body and head, he refused to answer reporters’ questions about whether he would agree with a teacher wearing such garb.
But the morning was marked by individuals ready to sign on to the charter.
Those included former teacher union boss Réjean Parent who — in arguing the bill does not go far enough — made the surprising concession that if a public servant refused to follow the new rules, they could be fired.
“At some point, you can’t ask your union to defend the indefensible,” Parent said, noting he was speaking as an individual and not the former president of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ).
On his way into the hearings — being held in the historic red room of the legislature — Parent said he came to testify because he was fed up with Quebec being portrayed as intolerant in some media.
“We’re asking employees — during their work hours — to show some restraint,” he said. “We aren’t asking them to give up their faith.”
He compared the requirement to public sector workers being asked to refrain from expressing their political opinions while delivering services, a parallel disputed by Tanguay.
But there were some strange moments on Tuesday, including a debate between Drainville and a 20-year-old student about the manner in which the crucifix over the speaker’s chair should be placed: to the left or to the right, but not over the chair.
And Serge Gauthier, president of Société d’histoire de Charlevoix, argued the values issue is not only a Montreal matter.
“Does a person living in a region have the right to feel he is at home on the island of Montreal?” Gauthier asked.
He argued immigrants, in fact, are happier when there are clear rules in a society into which they are integrating and the charter is a good idea.
“The risk is Montreal becoming a big exception,” Gauthier said.
The briefs are being heard on a first come, first served basis meaning those who submitted them early will be first to be heard.
Groups opposing the bill will be more prominent later in the process. The hearings continue Wednesday and Thursday. More than 250 groups have lined up to be heard.