Liberals refine spirit, if not letter, of the law on face coverings
Bill 62 does not mean getting kicked off a bus, Vallée insists
Under fire at home and abroad for its state neutrality bill, the Quebec government softened its stand Tuesday saying a person will be allowed to ride the bus or walk around a library without being obliged to remove a face covering.
In fact, the provincial justice minister, Stéphanie Vallée — under pressure from all sides — apologized if some of her impromptu hallway explanations on the legislation, Bill 62, created confusion and even panic, especially among minorities.
“We have no intention of putting in place a police force to verify face coverings,” Vallée said at a news conference called to release guidelines and calm the storm of controversy over the bill, which was adopted and given royal assent last Wednesday.
“I’m sorry that it wasn’t clear. Maybe what I am doing today I should have done the day after we adopted the bill. I am doing the honourable thing. I apologize, simply.”
But the opposition parties were not buying it, immediately accusing the government of ceding to pressure from Montreal’s political leaders and the negative reaction in the rest of the country where the bill was perceived as racist.
“The government caved, simply caved, and weakened the credibility of the Quebec government and the Quebec state,” Parti Québécois leader Jean-François Lisée said.
“I am ashamed. What Mr. Couillard (the premier) is showing, is that if you make enough trouble, I will not apply my laws. Denis Coderre is a voice to be listened to — but not obeyed.”
Montreal’s incumbent mayor said the city intends to act as it always has, despite the new law. “We will stay the course,” he said Tuesday. “I don’t think the law will pass the test of the courts.”
Coalition Avenir Québec leader François Legault called the law a mess. “The Liberals tabled a bill strung together with shoestring and created nothing but confusion.”
Both the PQ and CAQ voted against the bill last week saying it didn’t go far enough.
Caught in a perfect storm of protest, the government decided to dilute the policy and take a step backward — as was abundantly clear to those who have followed the long history of the bill, first tabled in 2015.
After saying the opposite when the bill was before committee, and three times last week to reporters, Vallée flip-flopped Tuesday and said a person will indeed be allowed to ride the bus or métro, sit in a hospital waiting room or walk around a library without removing a face covering.
The new word to cover the shift is “interaction,” meaning if there is no direct contact between a person and a public employee, everyone can go on their merry way. Quebec is counting on a dose of common sense as well.
The fact most Montrealers carry a digital OPUS card without a photo comes as a blessing for a government on the ropes because it means no human encounters.
The rules, however, will not change when it comes to people — students and seniors — who carry a reduced fare transit card bearing a photo and where a visual ID is required.
In those cases, a transit employer can ask a person to uncover their face, or in the case of Muslim women, remove their niqab or burka, for identification purposes, the minister said.
Unlike what she said before, once identified, the person can then re-cover their face for the duration of the trip or to sit in the waiting room of a hospital without being harassed or denigrated, Vallée said.
Students in the classroom have to have their faces uncovered while being taught but not when they are walking down the hall. A person collecting a child from a public daycare centre would have to have their face visible for identification purposes just as would a person requesting a legal file from a court clerk or being sworn into a function.
And a person wearing a ski mask or dark sunglasses trying to buy a bottle of wine would have to reveal themselves at the cash for proof of age.
Vallée, however, went on at length about what the bill does not do. The fact Bill 62 says services must be given and received with a face uncovered is not intended to govern such public spaces as parks and streets. And it is in no way a law about religious symbols.
“The law adopted is not repressive,” Vallée said noting the government is convinced it respects the Quebec and Canadian charters of rights and freedoms. “It does not include sanctions. We don’t learn to live together with repressive measures.
“Nobody will be expelled from public transit, nobody will be refused emergency health care, nobody will be chased out of a public library in Quebec.”
Under questioning, Vallée conceded a bus driver still gets saddled with the task of asking someone to remove their face covering if they carry a photo pass. The same goes for the receptionist at the emergency ward.
Vallée said this adds no additional burden to bus drivers because they already have the power to check identification.
And she said nobody is going to get kicked off the bus in freezing weather because a person who refuses to comply to the rules “simply does not get in.”
“If you don’t get on, you don’t get kicked off,” Vallée said. “It’s a choice people make; to have access to services or not have access to services.”
Bill 62 also provides for the possibility of a reasonable accommodation in the event a person invokes religious grounds for not wanting to reveal their face, she noted. The rules covering that aspect of the bill will be published later.
She did specify the bill will apply to the whole province, including Montreal, where it has been met with great resistance.
During the weekend, protesters took métro stations by storm — crossing through the turnstiles wearing face masks of all sorts — to show their unhappiness with the bill.
But on Tuesday, both Coderre and Quebec City Mayor Régis Labeaume said the changes mean little because they do not see how the bill can be applied and that it unfairly puts pressure on their workers.
The issue of state neutrality continues to haunt the politicians. On Tuesday, Gouin MNA Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois stuck to his plan to present a motion in the house to hold a debate on the presence of the crucifix over the speaker’s chair.
His hopes were dashed when the Liberals announced they would not support the motion, which cut off the debate before it even got started.
Not holding back his disappointment, Nadeau-Dubois called a news conference later where he accused the Liberals of “Olympiccalibre incoherence,” on the issue of state neutrality.