Federal leaders hide under veil of prudence

The tepid response from federal leaders to Quebec’s ill-conceived and offensive Bill 62 tells us three truths about Canadian politics. They are not comfortable truths. It tells us that all three major party leaders may harbour suspicions that the bill forcing face coverings to be removed while accessing public services may be more popular both inside and outside Quebec than what might be expected.

They may be right. This has all the trappings of a Donald Trump presidential run or a Brexit referendum in that the louder the protestations and the deeper the indignation of the mainstream pundits, editorial boards and the elite, the more popular the candidate or the legislation.

Secondly, it tells us that the further from power one is, the easier it is to be the champion of rights and liberties.

And thirdly, because it is Quebec, we know that any federal intervention is seen as a political third rail, which would not be the case if, say, a government in Manitoba or Nova Scotia had passed such legislation.

This is particularly true when the Quebec premier is a federalist.

No one wants to poke the hibernating PQ bear, everyone is leery of meddling in provincial jurisdiction, particularly when you have opposition parties who believe Premier Philippe Couillard’s absurd bill does not go far enough.

Here’s another reason for federal leaders to bide their time and give answers by rote — the bill is almost certain to be challenged in court and will likely wend its way to the Su- preme Court of Canada.

Although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could ask the court for an opinion on the constitutionality of the face-veil law, political prudence will mean he will wait for the court challenge to be generated from inside Quebec.

This prudence, however, presumes that Canadians are sympathetic to political gyrations. They deserve full-throated condemnation.

Trudeau, of course, is not alone. We have not heard anything remotely powerful from Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer or NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, either.

The prime minister’s indignation over measures that infringe on Canadians’ rights and liberties was hot from his perch as leader of the third party but has significantly cooled now that he exercises power.

In August 2013, responding to the Parti Québécois charter of values, Trudeau wrote in a Globe and Mail op-ed: “Church and state must be separate. But by what logic should we restrict the freedom of some Quebecers to express their religious beliefs? Simply because they are not shared by the majority? This is a dangerous road, not just for religious minorities within Quebec, but for all minorities, everywhere.”

Early in the election year, 2015, Trudeau delivered a speech at McGill University in opposition to then-prime minister Stephen Harper’s anti-terror legislation.

He said those who have argued that expanding liberty in this country would compromise our traditional values were wrong, “because working to gain freedom for our fellow citizens is a bedrock traditional value in this country. It is in large measure what it means to be Canadian.”

Last week, campaigning in Monday’s Lac-Saint-Jean byelection, Trudeau said he would study the “implications” of the bill. He said no government should tell a woman what or what not to wear, but he stayed far away from any federal intervention.

Scheer has a more politically advantageous issue to talk about, the government’s climb down on small business tax reforms and Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s stock holdings.

His is the most milquetoast of Bill 62 responses.

“Ultimately, this will be up to Quebecers to pass judgment on. It is a provincial law from the provincial legislature,” he told a Kitchener radio interviewer.

“We’ll see what happens in the courts.”

Singh has the distance of the third party when he tells the CBC, “it’s important we don’t pick and choose when it comes to human rights. We stand up for the rights of all people, all communities, all the time.’’

But for the NDP, the niqab has become kryptonite.

Former leader Tom Mulcair’s opposition to Harper’s bid to ban the niqab from citizenship ceremonies cost him dearly in Quebec in 2015 and Bill 62 already roiled the NDP leadership race won by Singh — a man whose head covering could become a challenge for him in Quebec.

This is what we have in late 2017 — three men weighing political calculations in Quebec.

It’s great news if you’re big on provincial rights, not so great if you were looking for someone to take on a racist piece of legislation. Tim Harper writes on national affairs. tjharper77@gmail.com, Twitter: @nutgraf1