COMPROMISE ON RELIGION
Legault waters down stance
They were all on their best behaviour, but remain miles apart on the heart of the matter.
On a day when the National Assembly resumed sitting with a tribute to those slain in last week’s Quebec City mosque tragedy, the leaders of all the parties were treading carefully, choosing their words with care.
“First of all I would like to welcome everyone’s tone this morning,” Premier Philippe Couillard said, rising in the legislature following the moment of silence observed by MNAs for the six Muslim men who died.
But beyond minding their business, the day ended as it started, with no agreement on how to legislate a framework for religious accommodations and make the Quebec state more secular.
In fact, the government is reluctant to connect the mosque tragedy to the ideas included in the only piece of legislation currently before the house connected to religion and secularism: Bill 62.
Languishing for months on the order paper, Bill 62 aims to bar people in the public sector from wearing face-coverings when giving or receiving a public service as well as creating guidelines for religious accommodations.
It was Coalition Avenir Québec Leader François Legault who argued earlier in the day that the government’s lack of action on the subject contributed to the unhealthy climate in the first place.
“It’s all well and good to extend a hand, but where are his solutions?” Legault asked the house.
Last week — in the thick of the crisis — Couillard extended an olive branch to his political foes, urging them to put some water in their wine and get behind Bill 62 because they at least agree on the idea of no face-coverings.
Politics being politics, however, Legault and Parti Québécois Leader Jean-François Lisée seized the opening as a cue to bargain themselves a tougher bill.
First up was Legault, who offered his idea of compromise in the morning. Legault said his party now is ready to narrow the definition of public-sector individuals who would not be allowed to wear such religious symbols as a kippah or hijab on the job.
While in the past he wanted the ban to apply to all persons in authority — such as judges, police officers and prison guards as well as elementary and high school teachers — he is now willing to drop the teachers.
In the business of identity politics that concept is known as the Bouchard-Taylor formula, included in the 2008 commission of the same name. Polls show the idea garners wide support in the population, a point Legault said the premier needs to consider.
“The ball is in Philippe Couillard’s court,” Legault said. “We can’t just sweep the problem under the rug.”
It was the first time in a week Legault took questions on the issue, insisting the reason he was not available to comment on the premier’s plea to tone down the rhetoric last week was that he felt it was not the appropriate time.
Pressed by reporters, Legault nevertheless said he does not believe the CAQ bears any responsibility for cranking up the identity issue despite accusations in the Muslim community that political parties played a role in creating an “insidious climate.”
“I think we always defended what the great majority of Quebecers want,” Legault said when asked if he ever went too far with the rhetoric.
Lisée, who last week offered a mea culpa on some of the inflammatory things he said in the heat of the identity debate, set out his conditions to support Bill 62. He too argued in favour of the BouchardTaylor formula but said he wants the bill to include the creation of a “user guide” on religious accommodations.
Back in Couillard’s court, the demands fell flat. Couillard welcomed everyone’s willingness to talk but indicated a clothing ban is a nonstarter because it is a non-problem.
“We will not barter our convictions and our principles,” Couillard said. “It is always surprising that we spend so much time on nonexistent issues. It was the case in 2012. It still is in 2017. Not a single police officer in Quebec wears any kind of religious signs.”