Opposition vows to oppose law on face coverings

Legislation does not settle secularism, religious accommodation: opposition

A person riding a Montreal city bus would have to have their face uncovered for the duration of the ride once the province’s new state neutrality bill becomes law.

Clarifying a key amendment that toughens the original language of Bill 62 — to be voted on Wednesday in the National Assembly — Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée said the intention of the legislator is clear when it says public services must be rendered and received with the face uncovered.

It includes something as basic as a bus ride, which is a form of public service being rendered. There had been confusion over whether that meant only if the person was addressing the driver for assistance or showing their ticket.

“The point of Bill 62 is having the face uncovered during the duration of the service and while the service is being rendered by the employee and being received by the citizens,” Vallée told reporters.

“Having your face uncovered is a legitimate question of communication, identification and security.”

Vallée’s comments came as the bill entered the home stretch of the adoption process in the National Assembly and as the confusion over how it will eventually be applied continued unabated.

In their closing remarks Tuesday, the Parti Québécois, Coalition Avenir and Québec solidaire all announced plans to vote against the bill, complaining it settles nothing when it comes to the issue of secularism and religious accommodations.

“I know people would have liked us to go further,” Vallée conceded in her remarks. “Others think we are going too far. I think a balance has been found.”

Tabled in 2015 following a Liberal election promise, the overall intention of the bill is that it requires people who give or receive any public service to uncover their faces.

It does not specifically mention niqabs or burkas, allowing the government to say the bill is not a ban on religious garb as was the case of the PQ’s old, failed charter of values.

It also includes clauses allowing a person to get around the no face coverings requirement by going to court and invoking a religious accommodation, which allows the government to say the legislation respects the Canadian and Quebec charters of values.

The request, the bill states, must be consistent with the right to equality between women and men and not impose undue hardship on the rights of others.

The bill initially covered provincial public sector workers and provincially funded institutions, but was later expanded to municipalities and metropolitan communities and public transit authorities.

The government has been on the ropes throughout the adoption process over the mechanics of the bill and what happens if someone with a covered face asks to be served.

That’s because the accommodations part of the bill will only come into force sometime after July 1, 2018, when the government adopts regulations. Yet the bill becomes law the moment it is adopted.

The delay on the guidelines has caused concern at all levels, from Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre to human rights organizations.

On Tuesday, Montreal businessman Mitch Garber waded in, saying the bill is racist and antiMuslim women.

But the opposition criticized the government for not going further, saying despite 10 years of talk since the Bouchard-Taylor commission on issue, the issue of religious accommodations remains up in the air.

“We will vote against because this settles nothing,” PQ critic Agnès Maltais said in her remarks. “Even the word secular is absent.”

Québec solidaire MNA Amir Khadir complained about the failure of his party’s attempt to include an amendment to have the crucifix over the legislature speaker’s chair removed.

But Vallée said the law is “respectful” and doesn’t discriminate against anyone, unlike the PQ’s old charter of values in which a public employee could be fired for wearing a religious symbol.