General Consultation and Public Hearings on Bill 60 Federation CJA

General consultation and public hearings on Bill 60

Charter affirming the values of State secularism and religious neutrality and of equality between women and men, and providing a framework for accommodation requests

Submitted by

Federation CJA and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

December 20, 2013 2

Table of Contents

1. Summary ...... 3 2. History and profile of the Jewish community in Quebec ...... 6 3. The Quebec Jewish community rejects the Charter of Quebec Values ...... 10 Banning of religious symbols ...... 11 Reasonable accommodation ...... 14 A bad solution to a nonexistent problem ...... 15 4. Analyses of Bill 60 ...... 18 a) Secularism undefined ...... 18 b) The fundamental freedom of religion violated ...... 20 c) The regulation of reasonable accommodation infringing on fundamental freedoms 22 d) An attack on the separation of powers ...... 25 e) The scope of the bill – extending the reach of the State ...... 26 f) Creation of legal uncertainty - affecting labour law ...... 28 g) Freedom of religion violated in the educational childcare services sector ...... 30 h) Affecting the right of religious minorities to be represented at the National Assembly ...... 31 i) Hierarchy of rights ...... 32 5. Conclusion: The Quebec that we envision ...... 36

1. Summary

Quebec Jews have long been active participants in shaping the daily life and the grand narrative of Quebec’s history. For two and a half centuries, they have fulfilled their duties as citizens by playing an active role in developing every aspect of Quebec society. In this respect, Quebec Jews have the legitimate expectation that the sustainability of their institutions, the value of their historic heritage, and their acquired rights be recognized and respected.

Bill 60, or the "Quebec Charter of Values," is a bad solution to a nonexistent issue. It is a solution that violates basic freedoms of conscience and religion, as protected by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, the bill threatens to betray the Quebec tradition of pluralism, exclude minority communities from fully participating in public life, and compromise the Jewish community's acquired rights and its future.

There have been no empirical studies to demonstrate a decline in religious neutrality or the secular nature of Quebec society. Nonetheless, the government is proposing to impose drastic limitations on freedoms of conscience and religion by prohibiting religious symbols to be worn within the public and parapublic sectors, and potentially in the private sector. Rather than reaffirming the secularism established since the Quiet Revolution, Bill 60 proposes a model that is in fact the antithesis of secularism. It confers an exceptional legal status to the traditional faith of the majority, referred to as patrimonial (pertaining to heritage), while marginalizing public expression of minority faiths.

The bill thus completely undermines the principle of religious neutrality of the State, which exists precisely in order to guarantee all of its citizens the freedoms of conscience and religion, as well as the right to equality. In addition, the bill's vague character, shrouded in legal uncertainty, confers excessive discretionary powers upon civil servants. 4

It is also difficult to see how Jewish community-based institutions, such as the Jewish General Hospital, would be able to implement the provisions stipulated in the bill.

The impact of Bill 60 on our community would be devastating. The social climate that has prevailed since the beginning of this societal debate has the potential to damage the continuity of the Jewish community. Already weakened by the exodus of the 1970’s, our aging community devotes all its energy towards programs to keep our youth in Quebec, and to attract others, notably from France. Now, the debate on the “Charter of Quebec Values” has discouraged our young people, who are starting to question their futures in Quebec. Meanwhile numerous French Jewish families tell us that they are considering immigrating to other regions of North America instead.

We are in favour of a pluralistic Quebec that respects the diversity of its population and where the majority culture nonetheless forms the basic core of a common culture. We also believe that Quebec has been outstandingly successful in finding the right balance between the cultural references of the majority and a pluralism that gives minorities the ability to express their distinctive characteristics while respecting French-Canadian history and tradition. We believe that the policy of cultural convergence adopted in 1981 under the René Lévesque government should continue to guide Quebec integration policies.

Now, the "Quebec Charter of Values" threatens to disrupt this precious balance achieved by the Quiet Revolution by imposing an artificially homogeneous framework on Quebec national identity to the detriment of the dynamic character of Quebec society. We deplore that the spirit of this Bill results from a will to reassert a notion of Quebec identity based exclusively on ethno-cultural characteristics of the majority. The "Quebec Charter of Values" represents a radical break from Quebec's model of integration.

In addition, we support a model of secularism that is unique to Quebec, that is, a flexible secularism in line with Quebec's quiet emancipation from the authority of the Church, 5 rather than importing France's uncompromising model, which resulted from its difficult, and at times violent separation of State and Church.

The Quebec social model, which is inclusive and tolerant, respectful of the majority's history and its population, has allowed Quebec to avoid the tensions and social fragmentation that plague other Western societies. By introducing to Quebec a secular model that is foreign to our history, we risk importing with it social conflicts that have, until now, been nonexistent in Quebec. Half a century after the Quiet Revolution, our Quebec is absolutely mature and intelligent enough to deal with the challenges of immigration without eliminating the spirit of generosity and openness that characterize it.

In order to continue the tradition of balancing the collective rights of the majority, pluralism and the respect for minority rights, it is imperative that our elected representatives reject Bill 60. 6

2. History and profile of the Jewish community in Quebec

The Jewish community – the first non-Christian group to come to Quebec – has been an integral part of Quebec society for 253 years. Over these two and a half centuries, Jews have played a crucial role in contributing to Quebec's social, intellectual, political, cultural, artistic, economic, scientific and medical development. If participation in public life is any gauge of integration, the Quebec Jewish Community’s position as a historically integrated community is indisputable.

Very early on, the Jewish community became actively involved in the public sphere. In 1807 and 1808, the residents of Three Rivers elected Ézekiel Hart twice as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada, although he could never sit in the parliament because he was Jewish. Later on, under the leadership of Patriote Louis-Joseph Papineau, the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada adopted an act granting full democratic rights to Quebec Jews in 1832. Quebec thereby became the first jurisdiction in the British Empire to grant Jews political emancipation (Great Britain followed only in 1858.)

While the Jewish community was comprised of less than 500 individuals until 1871, Jews made a disproportionate contribution to the development and modernization of Quebec in the 19th century. In 1832, Moses Judah Hays established Montreal’s first aqueduct system. He was appointed to the bench in 1835, became police chief in 1845 and built the city’s first theatre in 1848.

In 1861, Jesse Joseph implemented the city’s first public transportation service. Joseph also became President of the Montreal Gas Company, the forerunner to Hydro-Québec.

In 1876, Sigismond Mohr established Quebec City’s first telephone network, harnessed the Chutes Montmorency in 1885 and lit up the streets of the provincial capital.

To address its social needs, the community created a social services agency in 1863, known today as Agence Ometz. It was the first social services agency in all of Quebec 7 and Canada and would serve, a century later, as a model for public social services agencies.

In 1901, the Jewish community had a population of only 7,000. Over the next three decades, the community’s population underwent significant growth due to an influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe. In 1931, the community had grown to 58,000 and represented 7% of the population of Montreal, where Yiddish became the third most spoken language.

In the 1930’s, 35% of Montreal Jews were active in the manufacturing sector, and many of them had socialist ideals. The decade was marked by Quebec Jews’ social engagement. The most eminent representative of Jewish involvement in social progress undoubtedly remains Léa Roback, who later became the figurehead of several of the era’s social struggles, including the union movement, women’s rights and access to housing.

In 1934, the community opened the Jewish General Hospital to meet the needs of Jewish doctors and nurses, who at the time were discriminated against in the city’s other hospitals. Right from the outset, the Hospital had a mission to welcome everyone. Today, the Hospital, which still relies heavily on Jewish philanthropic initiatives, is one of the best medical institutions in Quebec, serving a clientele that is 80% non-Jewish and is a major source of pride for our community.

With every wave of immigration, Jews brought with them their many skills, participating in the development of Quebec by contributing to cultural, scientific, academic, economic and political fields, and financially supporting landmark institutions including the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, McGill University and the Université de Montréal.

The Quebec Jewish community has had five Grand Officers, eight Officers and 18 Knights of the National Order of Quebec, as well as nine recipients of the Scientific Prize of Quebec and two recipients of the Cultural Prize. Four Quebecers of Jewish origin have 8 received a Nobel Prize (Saul Bellow, Sydney Altman, Rudolph A. Marcus, Ralph M. Steinman).

Other remarkable Jews from Montreal include Phyllis Lambert from the field of architecture, Naïm Kattan and Mordecai Richler in literature, Dr. Mark Wainberg, a leader in the fight against AIDS, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, who struggled for women’s rights to control their own bodies, Leonard Cohen in poetry and music, Pauline Donalda in opera, and Dr. Alton Goldbloom in pediatrics. In business, the Bronfman, Steinberg and Brownstein (Brown Shoes) families come to mind, and, more recently, names such as Aldo Bensadoun (Aldo Group), David Bitton (Buffalo) and Goodman (Pharmascience) have become household names. Leaders in real estate include the Cummings family, David Azrieli and Marcel Adams (Iberville Developments Limited).

In 1970, Dr. Victor Goldbloom became the first Jew to be a member of the Quebec Cabinet. Alan B. Gold was the first Jew to be appointed as Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec in 1970, then later Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec in 1983.

The Jewish community today has a population of around 90,000. Concentrated in the Greater Montreal Area, the community, like the general population, is aging and is making significant efforts to keep its youth in Quebec.

The Jewish community's sense of identity relies on a basic philosophy of community responsibility expressed through philanthropy, volunteer initiatives and the creation of community-based charitable organizations.

Federation CJA is the umbrella organization of philanthropic and community services. The network, which includes 11 constituent agencies and over 30 affiliated organizations, offers resources in areas that include health and social services, education, and cultural and religious life.

A product of the amalgamation of the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canada-Israel Committee, the Quebec Jewish Congress, the Quebec-Israel Committee and the University Outreach Committee, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs represents Federation CJA and the interests of the Jewish community. It acts as the liaison between the Jewish community and the three levels of government, the media, cultural communities, businesses and universities.

Members of the Jewish community are highly diversified in their forms of worship. The majority of Quebec Jews are secular while engaging in various degrees of religious practice. As in all religions, there exists within the Jewish community groups that stand out through their practice or lifestyle. For example, the Ultra Orthodox (including the Hassidic Jews), who represent only 15% of the Quebec Jewish population, are recognizable by the way they dress and their general appearance.

3. The Quebec Jewish community rejects the Charter of Quebec Values

In 1982, the Quebec government adopted a motion at the National Assembly to mark the 150th anniversary of the law establishing full political emancipation of the Jews of Lower Canada.

On this occasion, Quebec Premier René Lévesque delivered at the Blue Hall (Salon bleu) an eloquent speech on the venerable Quebec tradition of respecting the rights of minorities:

« Le président de l'Assemblée nationale, au moment de l'adoption de la loi, était nul autre que Louis-Joseph Papineau, le chef des patriotes, qui demeure toujours aujourd'hui un point de repère de notre histoire. Ainsi, la poursuite de ses propres droits collectifs n'avait pas fait oublier à la majorité francophone, en la personne de ses dirigeants politiques, le sort des minorités avec lesquelles elle coexistait. Ce sont des traditions dont notre peuple a lieu d'être fier d'autant plus qu'il a su non seulement les garder vivantes, mais se maintenir à l'avant-garde des sociétés de liberté et de tolérance. Sur ce plan essentiel, l'évènement d'aujourd'hui nous fournit en quelque sorte l'occasion toujours utile de renouveler nos vœux. »

Thirty-two years later, the Jewish community is dismayed and outraged to see that the party founded by René Lévesque is attempting to not only break with the Quebec tradition of respecting the rights of minorities, but also with the very foundations of the rule of law by proposing a bill that advocates for an unjustified infringement of basic rights and freedoms based on a mere discomfort felt by the majority.

Banning of religious symbols

Of all the provisions set out in Bill 60, or the “Quebec Charter of Values,” those restricting the wearing of so-called “conspicuous” religious symbols in the public and parapublic sectors most clearly violate the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in international law. The application of such provisions would result in the dismissal of employees in the public and parapublic sectors, and religious discrimination during the hiring process. The banning of such symbols is a gross violation of the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression, and of the right to employment equality as protected by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The premise upon which the wearing of religious symbols would be banned is unsubstantiated and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the principle of religious neutrality of the State. Secularism of Quebec public institutions is already a reality solidly established since the end of the Quiet Revolution. As emphasized by the Quebec Human Rights Commission, religious neutrality applies to state institutions and not to its employees or representatives1.

The Government is making a grave error by assuming that religious symbols are necessarily prosletyzing, and is arbitrarily prejudicing public-sector employees who wear religious symbols by assuming that they will not fulfill their duty of neutrality and impartiality. It is unfortunate that the government has to be reminded that staff members of public bodies and of the state must be evaluated by their conduct and professionalism, and not by their headgear.

Although in theory, the prohibition of the wearing of so-called “conspicuous” religious symbols seems to place all religions on an equal footing, in practice, it targets non- Christian religious symbols. The most common religious symbol worn by people of the Christian faith is not considered “conspicuous,” while those symbols worn by non-

1 Comments on the Government Policy Paper: Parce que nos valeurs, on y croit… (2013), Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, p.10

Christian religions are regarded as such. Therefore, the prohibition of the wearing of religious symbols will only have true repercussions on religious minorities and will create an additional obstacle to their already limited access to employment in the public service.

The Human Rights Commission emphasized that any provision that infringes upon the rights and freedoms protected by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms must be accompanied with supporting evidence that the objectives of doing so are urgent and real.

The government has not presented any study proving that the wearing of religious symbols in the public and parapublic service compromises the religious neutrality of public bodies. In reality, anecdotal evidence demonstrates the contrary, in that the wearing of religious symbols does not pose any problem in government agencies.

It should be noted that “data gathered during [Human Rights] Commission investigations and from its Advisory service regarding reasonable accommodation, does not report a single situation in which the wearing of religious symbols by a public sector worker would have threatened the principle of religious neutrality”2. The problem is nonexistent in the healthcare system. The daily newspaper La Presse reports that only one complaint was filed with the 11 Montreal hospitals in three years3, which confirms the conclusions from the consultation conducted by the Association québécoise d’établissements de santé et de services sociaux (AQESSS) among its 125 member health institutions:

« La consultation menée par l'AQESSS a par ailleurs révélé que 100 % des répondants ne rencontrent pas de problèmes significatifs en ce qui a trait au port de signes religieux ostentatoires. Les directeurs des ressources humaines indiquent qu'aucune plainte formelle n'a été formulée au cours des deux dernières années à ce sujet. En somme, le port de signes religieux ostentatoires ne cause pas de problème dans les établissements.

2 Idem, p. 11 3 “Accommodements: une plainte en trois ans dans les hôpitaux,” La Presse, December 2 2013, p. A8

‘Le sondage nous révèle que les membres de l'AQESSS sont inquiets de l'interdiction éventuelle du port de signes religieux ostentatoires. Ils craignent que cette interdiction génère des effets négatifs sur le recrutement et la rétention du personnel qualifié de même que sur les équipes de travail et de recherche, et ce, dans un contexte de pénurie de main-d'œuvre. Ils s'inquiètent également des impacts sur le climat des équipes de travail’, a déclaré Diane Lavallée, directrice générale de l'AQESSS.

C'est pourquoi l'AQESSS demande au gouvernement de ne pas assujettir, dans un futur projet de loi, les établissements de santé et de services sociaux à l'orientation no 3 de la proposition gouvernementale, soit l'interdiction du port de signes religieux ostentatoires par les personnes œuvrant dans les établissements »4.

We also note that prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols does not respond to any urgent and real needs in the educational sector. The Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE), which represents one third of teachers, does not consider the wearing of religious symbols by teachers to compromise State secularism or to constitute a form of proselytism. Considering that the banning of religious symbols would have an effect on labour law5, we agree with the FAE in their recognition that the Quebec Charter of Values would arbitrarily target teachers from religious minorities, whilst it states that the government has “opted for secularism based on ‘ethnicity’ rather than citizenship”6. For the University of Montreal, the wearing of religious symbols is simply not an issue. “The observation has been that the Charter does not meet our needs,” it concluded. The Université du Québec à Montréal7 and the Université de Sherbrooke8 both consider the

4 Communiqué Charte des valeurs québécoises, AQESSS, 1er octobre 2013 5 “Charte des valeurs - Conflit en vue entre Québec et les enseignants,” Le Devoir, September 5 2013, p. A1 6 Document sur la Charte des valeurs québécoises, Fédération autonome de l’Enseignement, October 2013: http://www.lafae.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/201310_Laicite_no-6_feuillet.pdf 7 “Au tour de l’UQAM de dire non à la charte,” Le Devoir, December 4 2013, p. A1 8 “Des universités disent non à la charte”, Le Devoir, December 3 2013, p. A1 14 provision regarding the banning of religious symbols to be “inapplicable.” McGill University determined that the prohibition of religious symbols does not meet its needs, because it “adds nothing to McGill’s strict religious and political neutrality.”

It is undeniable that the prohibition of religious symbols does not fulfill any real and urgent need in state institutions and public bodies. The government is unable to establish that this provision of the bill meets any critical sociopolitical requirement. The government is claiming to be preventing a potential threat that has still not identified or determined. It is apparent that the infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms, which includes the prohibition of religious symbols, is not only unjustified, but also entirely unreasonable.

Reasonable accommodation

The government claims to want to clarify the practice of reasonable accommodation, to provide guidelines or a framework that would enable requests to be processed more easily within public bodies.

Although the bill reiterates the criteria established in jurisprudence for the granting of a reasonable accommodation, it introduces new criteria and distinctions, rendering the conditions under which a reasonable accommodation is granted to be ambiguous.

The resulting legal uncertainty suggests that a Jew hoping to take an unpaid vacation for a religious obligation could be refused without appeal. Just like the Human Rights Commission, the Jewish community fears that the inherent vagueness in the bill is “likely to have significant adverse effects in the actual exercising of rights and freedoms.”9 As well, the government is once again creating a new obstacle for minorities to have access to employment opportunities in the public and parapublic service.

9 Comments on the Government Policy Paper: Parce que nos valeurs, on y croit… (2013), Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, p.17

A bad solution to a nonexistent problem

The Jewish community fully supports Quebec’s current secular model, which guarantees freedom of worship and conscience to everyone, and rights and freedoms to religious minorities.

The Charter proposes that the Quebec model of secularism be replaced by a pretense of secularism, in fact the antithesis of secularism, by conferring an exceptional legal status to the traditional faith of the majority, referred to as “patrimonial”, while marginalizing the public expression of minority faiths. As a result, the bill destroys the principle of religious neutrality of the State, intended to safeguard freedom of conscience and religion and the right to equality.

Let us be clear, the Jewish community does not oppose the patrimonial character of the Catholic faith. It is a part of Quebec culture and society that we have always respected. If the patrimonial status of Catholicism sometimes seems to be questioned, it is not because of the presence of religious minorities, but rather because of an underlying need for political correctness that prevails in society.

The government is attempting to legislate on the patrimonial status of Catholicism in the name of secularism. However, it is advocating for a deceptive form of secularism while infringing upon the rights and freedoms of religious minorities, instead of protecting them, as a religiously neutral State should be doing.

To illustrate this point, we need only to recall the actual time when the idea of the “Quebec Charter of Values” was made public; it wasn’t on September 10th, but rather on May 17th of this year. Montreal has a tradition of lifting parking restrictions near synagogues for Jewish holidays. Bernard Drainville, Minister responsible for Democratic Institutions and Active Citizenship, jumped on the opportunity to promote the “Charter.” The Minister spoke out publicly against the so-called "special privileges" and "preferential treatment" given to Quebec Jews, even going so far as to say that the Jewish 16 community was a source of “resentment,” “bickering,” “conflict,” and “anger,” ignoring the fact that similar adjustments are made for Christian holidays.

The government chose to make an issue of an innocuous measure of good neighborly relations, which is neither an "accommodation" nor "unreasonable" and even less of an assault on State secularism, in order to announce what he was calling at the time the "Charter of Secularism." This shows the false social and political premises on which the government bill is based. More importantly, it indicates not only a distorted understanding of secularism, but the rejection, not only of the reviled Canadian multiculturalism, but of basic pluralism that supports the structure of liberal democracies like Quebec.

This rejection of pluralism is intended to be a response, on the part of the government, to the majority's identity crisis. We know from the Bouchard-Taylor Commission report, that this identity crisis is the product of a “crisis of perception” of the practice of reasonable accommodation. As the commissioners so astutely point out, “the negative perception of accommodation often stemmed from an erroneous or partial perception of practices in the field. Had the public been more familiar with such practices, perhaps there would not have been an accommodation crisis.”10

Many journalists have also acknowledged the media’s responsibility in the reasonable accommodation crisis. At the Congrès de la Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec in 2007, Carole Beaulieu (L’Actualité), Katia Gagnon and Vincent Marissal (La Presse) had harshly criticized the media's lack of diligence in covering the issue of reasonable accommodation.

Instead of downplaying the identity crisis created by the sensationalism of the media and reassuring the population that neither Quebec values, nor secularism are at risk, the government is instead fanning the flames. In a completely irresponsible manner it is

10 "Fonder l’avenir. Le temps de la réconciliation" (abridged report by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission), p. 22 17 gratuitously plunging Quebec into a futile, harmful debate that could very well damage the social fabric of Quebec and the relationships between the majority and the minorities.

In its current form, the bill advocates a pretext of secularism that infringes upon fundamental rights and freedoms and stigmatizes, marginalizes and discriminates against religious minorities. The “Quebec Charter of Values” constitutes a denial of a prevailing Quebec value, which is the venerable Quebec tradition of pluralism and the respect for minorities from which René Lévesque rightfully derived such pride.

In order to continue the tradition of balancing the collective rights of the majority, pluralism, and the respect for minority rights, Bill 60 must be rejected by our elected representatives.

4. Analyses of Bill 60

The objective of this brief is to demonstrate that several provisions in Bill 60 are illegal and violate the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, established concepts in jurisprudence, the international Covenants binding Quebec and the founding principles of Quebec democracy, which ironically were intended to be defended by this bill. Many provisions in this bill do not clarify existing jurisprudence and regulations, and are excessively ambiguous and inaccurate. All of this adds to the unconstitutionality of the bill, and clearly violates the laws and regulations that govern Quebec.

Based on these arguments, we recommend that the bill be withdrawn and rejected. a) Secularism undefined

Bill 60 begins by outlining in Chapter 1 a “two-tiered” secularism:

"a public body must (…) reflect the secular nature of the State, while making allowances, if applicable, for the iconic and toponymic elements of Québec’s historic cultural heritage."

There are no criteria set out to define the historical or cultural characteristics and no specific rules to deal with how these exemptions will be applied. The application of this provision is left only to the public agency, which wields exorbitant and often arbitrary powers.

The Human Rights Commission even deems that "such an addition could create significant inconsistencies in the law"11.

11 Comments on the Government Policy Paper: Parce que nos valeurs, on y croit… (2013), Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, p.8 19

The definition of the historic nature of Quebec's cultural heritage is left to the arbitrary discretion of the State's civil servants. The bill does not provide for any body to be responsible for identifying the “criteria of cultural heritage in Québec that attests to its history.”

Can the Jewish community who has lived in Quebec for 250 years benefit from this section? Could the Jewish community make the argument that some of its symbols can be recognized as “emblematic or toponymic” and as contributing to Quebec’s cultural heritage? The answer to this is not clear without specific rules.

The absence of clear guidelines would allow the requirement of religious neutrality to be circumvented if a public body argues that they have a historical or cultural significance tied to the majority religion, without minorities being able to argue the same. Absolute religious neutrality as discussed in the preamble and in the explanatory notes of the bill would be impossible to attain if no clear framework exists explaining what symbols would be considered as “iconic or toponymic”, and would therefore be the exempt from application of the Charter.

Furthermore, we must question the intentions of the writer of the bill, as state secularism will no longer be about respecting the many beliefs of citizens and about state neutrality, but rather, will be a new form of State religion itself.

It seems that Bill 60 errs on the question of State secularism because as the Human Rights Commission specifies, “to use secularism only to refer to the neutrality of the state or to the principle of the separation of Church and state masks the very purpose of secularism by repudiating freedom of religion and the implementation of the right to equality”12.

12 Idem, p. 6 20

b) The fundamental freedom of religion violated

In section 5, Bill 60 sets out the ban imposed on all personnel of public bodies. While an employer is legally authorized to impose a uniform or dress code, the prohibition of wearing certain items of clothing denies fundamental freedoms, lacks legal basis and must accordingly be declared unconstitutional.13

Section 3 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms recognizes freedom of religion as a fundamental right that benefits from constitutional protection. Section 5 of Bill 60 declares that "personnel members of public bodies must not wear objects such as headgear, clothing, jewelry or other adornments which, by their conspicuous nature, overtly indicate a religious affiliation." This infringes upon the fundamental freedom of religion by denying a person their right to religious expression.

The Human Rights Commission reminds us, “the proposed prohibition of ‘conspicuous’ religious symbols would infringe directly not only upon the right to exercise one’s freedom of religion, but also upon the freedom of speech and the right to equal access to employment”14.

The jurisprudence established on this matter supports this position.15

Section 10 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms stipulates that the equality of rights and liberties of each person exists “without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex (..), religion (…), and paragraph 2 specifies that “discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of

13 R. v. Big M. Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 R.C.S. 295, par. 94 14 Comments on the Government Policy Paper: Parce que nos valeurs, on y croit… (2013), Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, p.10 15 See in particular: S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, [2012] 1 R.C.S. 235; Bruker v. Marcovitz, [2007] 3 R.C.S. 607; Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] 2 R.C.S. 551 21 nullifying or impairing such right.” It is therefore apparent that discrimination would result from the application of the bill.

“The idea of prohibiting religious symbols and attire in the public service is based on a misunderstanding of the idea of separation of church and state. This fundamental tenet of free societies demands that public institutions and those who work for them be religiously neutral, not religiously neutered.” - Irwin Cotler, Member of Parliament, Professor of law, expert in constitutional law and comparative law, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.16

Section 16 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, disallows discrimination at the time of employment when it states “No one may practice discrimination in respect of hiring.”

Bill 60 creates discrimination not only during employment but also at the time of hiring. According to sections 10 and 37, as will be discussed later, a private company doing business with a public body may not hire persons wearing items which indicate a religious affiliation for fear of eventually losing its contracts. It is apparent that public bodies subject to the application of Bill 60 would also discriminate during the hiring process based on religious affiliation.

It is important to consider the scope of persons targeted by this bill, defined as “personnel members.” This ambiguous definition can cover an infinite variety of individuals, from salaried employees to external contractors or committees comprised of volunteers.

This difference in semantics may have many consequences in terms of its practical application. The power to apply a sanction in the case of non-compliance with the

16 Cotler, Irwin “The PQ’s so-called values charter is at odds with Quebec values”, The Suburban, August 28, 2013 http://thesuburban.com/article.php?id=1958&title=The-PQ%E2%80%99s-So-called-Values- Charter-Is-At-Odds-With-Quebec-Values

22 provisions depends on the relationship of subordination. The reference to “personnel member” does not define with any certainty the scope of the category of persons concerned. The vague character of this notion (which is very important since it refers to the people who will be affected by the bill) vitiates the provisions it makes reference to. c) The regulation of reasonable accommodation infringing on fundamental freedoms

Section 7, paragraph 2 of Bill 60 stipulates that a public body “must refuse to grant reasonable accommodation if in the context, the refusal is warranted for security or identification reasons or because of the level of communication required.”

Sections 15 to 18, which also address the issue of reasonable accommodation, claim to offer a clarification and a framework regarding the granting of different treatments to accommodate individuals’ religious practices.

These provisions only reiterate the criteria established by the Supreme Court concerning reasonable accommodation. It is surprising that a law intended to provide a new framework for these requests is limited to repeating pre-existing jurisprudence. Under the guise of an attempt to clarify and remedy the ambiguous areas in the existing legal framework, Bill 60 further complicates the issue by imposing more prohibitions that are not accompanied by clear sanctions.

The obligation imposed on public bodies to refuse a reasonable accommodation is not supported by any specific sanction, neither for the public body that would not abide by the rules, nor for the individual who may ignore the public body’s refusal to grant the accommodation.

Section 18 of Bill 60 states that "accommodation requests on religious grounds cannot be made with respect to the duties and obligations set out in sections 3 to 6." This 23 prohibition would have the direct consequence of preventing any observant Jew from working or being “a personnel member” of a public body.

In fact, observant Jews wishing to observe the Jewish holidays (which do not follow the Christian calendar year) may not be granted an unpaid day off for a Jewish holiday simply because their requests have a religious purpose, and will certainly not be entitled to wear a kippah.

This discrimination based on the denial of the fundamental freedom of religion once again infringes on the provisions in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms and deprives members of our community from working for a public body.

The matter of reasonable accommodation is also considered under section 42 of Bill 60, which would amend the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to include a law governing reasonable accommodation.

This section sets out the criteria for a reasonable accommodation, which differ whether one is dealing with a public body or not.

It should be specified that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence has already ruled on reasonable accommodation criteria and conditions. The accommodation requested must not create undue hardship and “(the) onus is upon the employer to show that he made an effort to accommodate the complainant's religious beliefs up to the point of undue hardship.”17

Undue hardship considers the “financial cost, disruption of a collective agreement, problems of morale of other employees, interchangeability of work force and facilities”.

17 Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta Human Rights Commission. [1990] 2 R.C.S. 489 24

“If the employer fails to provide an explanation as to why individual accommodation cannot be accomplished without undue hardship, the duty to accommodate has not been discharged and the Bona Fide occupational Qualification has not been established”18.

Section 42 of Bill 60 which attempts to add section 20.2 to the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms reexamines the criteria established by jurisprudence, and in the fourth paragraph an additional criteria is added: “in the case of a state organization, accommodation must not compromise the separation of religions and State or the religious neutrality and secular nature of the State.”

This addition raises many questions regarding its foundation.

On the one hand, it should be noted that now the bill is referring to a “state organization” and not a “public body.” In the absence of any specification, once again we wonder how these institutions will be defined.

On the other hand, the bill does not specify the cases that would infringe on the neutrality of the State. Would the observant Jew asking for unpaid time off for a Jewish holiday tarnish the neutrality of the State? Would granting time off based on a religious request compromise the separation of religion and State? Should it be concluded that public bodies would no longer tolerate the wearing of religious symbols but would also refuse all requests for reasonable accommodation on religious grounds?

Any reasonable accommodation has the view of "accommodating" an employee so his or her freedom of religion may be respected without the company’s operations being affected. This reasonable accommodation never affects the secular nature of the institution in which the person requesting said accommodation is employed.

Once again, because of a lack of clarity and precision, this bill remains unclear regarding its true motivations. It creates a legal uncertainty that will primarily affect religious minorities,

18 Idem 25 such as the Jewish community, whose celebrations do not follow the Gregorian calendar and, as a result, will need to make some requests for reasonable accommodations. d) An attack on the separation of powers

Section 8, paragraph 1 of Bill 60 imposes the obligations set out in sections 3 to 6 on "judges of the Court of Québec, the Professions Tribunal, the Human Rights Tribunal and the municipal courts, as well as presiding or administrative justices of the peace". These sections (3 to 6) refer to religious neutrality in the exercise of the personnel’s functions, the obligation to exercise reserve, to respect the restriction of wearing objects, jewelry or clothing, which, by their conspicuous nature, indicate a religious affiliation, and the obligation to have the face uncovered.

This provision makes a mockery of the principle establishing the separation between the legislative and judicial powers. The principle of judicial independence has always been a fundamental value in Quebec jurisprudence.

Furthermore, section 10 of Quebec’s judicial code of ethics stipulates: “The judge should uphold the integrity and defend the independence of the judiciary, in the best interest of justice and society.”

Judicial independence is constantly defended by jurisprudence: although the government holds the final decision concerning removal, it “may remove a judge only upon a report of the Court of Appeal” (s. 95 Courts of Justice Act). The implementation of such a provision indicates a real will on the part of the legislator that the executive power is able to act only through a directive delivered by the Court of Appeal. Since this law binds the executive power, provincial court judges are “secure against interference by the Executive or other appointing authority in a discretionary or arbitrary manner”. 19 Section 95 C.J.A. is in conformity with the requirements of judicial independence.

19 Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673

Consequently, according to the principle of judicial independence, it is impossible for the legislative and executive power to impose such obligations (sections 3 to 6) to the members of the bench.

This bill was tabled to ensure State neutrality and that of its representatives. Judges do not represent the State; only the Crown is responsible for upholding the State power and for representing it before the courts. If the judge was representing the interests of the State, then it would be impossible for him or her to rule on disputes involving the State or its representatives. Only the separation of powers allows the justiciable the right to appeal a decision or an act emanating from the executive or legislative power. The purpose of this distinction is to prevent a single person or group of persons from having all control of the State powers.

As described by Montesquieu, founder of the theory of the separation of powers, if the executive power was also the judicial power, no control of the executive would be possible.

The rule of law presumes an existence of individual and collective freedoms (freedom of belief, of association, of opinion) and the independence of judicial power vis-à-vis political powers.

The above-mentioned provisions therefore render Bill 60 invalid. e) The scope of the bill – extending the reach of the State

Section 10 of Bill 60 introduces an extension of the scope of the bill by stating that a “public body may require any person or partnership with whom it has entered into a service contract or subsidy agreement fulfill one or more of the duties set out.”

Consequently, any person or private company engaged in a contractual relationship with a public body may have to abide by the requirements of neutrality imposed on employees of the State.

This extension is surprising for a number of reasons.

The preamble as well as the explanatory notes of this bill suggest the government's willingness to reaffirm the values that constitute the separation of religion and State as well as the religious neutrality that State representatives must embody. Section 10 goes beyond this by extending the obligations to persons (physical or legal) who do not represent the State, and are therefore not bound by the rights and duties of public sector employees.

The direct consequences of implementing this bill would create two categories of individuals; those able to benefit from the rights associated with their duties, and those having only the obligation without the benefit of the related rights.

From both moral and legal perspectives, this provision, by creating institutional inequality, goes against all the founding principles of any democracy intended to ensure equality between citizens.

As well, the criteria indicated to apply this provision are extremely vague and offer no legal security. No parameters are in place to regulate the application of this provision that may affect the majority of professionals in Quebec.

Not only does this bill consider institutions such as universities and hospitals as public (even though they have autonomy from the State), but it aims to expand the government’s reach by extending the provisions to persons and private companies that would contract with public bodies.

The State's control would be extended to almost all economic players in Quebec, requiring them to abide by obligations contrary to their individual freedoms and in turn, creating legal uncertainty.

According to the Young Bar Association of Montreal, "the proposed text risks encouraging a proliferation of recourses and contestations related to the varying application of the provisons from one organization to another, from a text that wanted to provide a clear guide."20

Section 10 of the bill should be read along with section 37, which allows the government to “make a body, institution or public office, or a category of the same, subject to one or more provisions of this Charter.”

The vagueness of the criteria brings about an absolute lack of clarity and, like section 10, no guarantee or framework is specified to indicate the scope of the law nor to define the subjects of law likely to be affected by this provision.

The notion of "public office" is not determined and can have many definitions.

Does education have a public nature based on its function or the institutions in which it is provided? Does care for the elderly and the underprivileged also have a public character?

The inevitable differences of interpretation can produce dramatic consequences both in the distribution of grants and in the operation and sustainability of Jewish institutions that provide care to the elderly, the underprivileged, education systems etc. f) Creation of legal uncertainty - affecting labour law

The provisions set out in section 13 of Bill 60 that amend labour law create further legal uncertainty. It would appear from this section that the provisions in "sections 3 to 6 are

20 Young Bar Association of Montréal, Press release, November 21 2013 29 deemed to constitute an integral part of the employment conditions of the persons to whom they apply."

The range of people affected by the bill remains uncertain. The bill uses the term "personnel members" and not workers or employees, which suggests a broader category of individuals. The interpretation is once again left to the discretion of the government or its civil servants, again creating a void of any legal control.

Public bodies have many committees comprised of external persons; is the bill targeting these individuals also? Should members of the boards of directors of public and parapublic companies be excluded from these decision-making bodies if they conspicuously display their religious beliefs?

Should private companies that are linked to one or more public bodies through various service contracts also amend their employment contracts if one of their employees is to provide a service to a public body?

The application of these provisions would have the effect of creating a major jurisdictional dispute. It is not clear what will be the competent jurisdiction to hear a labour dispute involving a "personnel member" or an employee of a private company who is providing a service to a public body. It is obvious that this bill, which is supposed to reduce conflicts, introduces new ones.

Similarly, consideration should also be given to the scope of the legal obligations of labour unions that could find themselves in an uncomfortable situation if they represent employees contesting a disciplinary sanction imposed by Bill 60. Could the unions themselves, which are subject to the prohibitions imposed by the bill, nevertheless defend the interests of employees making a demand for a reasonable accommodation or who are being penalized for expressing their faith?

Finally, as the Commission of Human Rights recalls, "the Act Respecting Equal Access to Employment in Public Bodies institutes a particular context for equal access to employment within public bodies. The aim of this Act is to remedy the situation of individuals who belong to the five groups that experience employment discrimination, in other words "women," "handicapped persons," "Aboriginal peoples," and persons who are members of "visible minorities" and "ethnic minorities".21

It seems obvious that Bill 60 is inconsistent with the abovementioned law, as it deprives citizens of legal protection, creates a conflict of laws and will tie up the court system, from the inevitable proliferation of recourses before the justice system. g) Freedom of religion violated in the educational childcare services sector

Bill 60 lists the persons and institutions in the educational childcare service sector that would be affected by the application of the bill. All of these provisions contradict the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which as we recall, establishes the right to equality in the recognition and exercise of rights and freedoms, and prohibits discrimination linked to the denial of one of these rights.

Freedom of religion is clearly stated in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (sections 3 and 10) and Bill 60 violates this freedom by prohibiting the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols within institutions that provide educational childcare services. This prohibition would have the effect of introducing a form of discrimination against persons expressing their faith. This discrimination would be present both at the time of hiring and may also be a reason for the termination of employment, because despite the lack of clarity on this subject, it seems obvious that a personnel member failing to abide by the prohibitions prescribed by Bill 60 would be terminated.

21 Comments on the government policy paper : Parce que nos valeurs, on y croit… (2013), Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, p.13

h) Affecting the right of religious minorities to be represented at the National Assembly

Private companies, individuals providing services to public bodies, those working in educational childcare services and for the judiciary, as well as members of the National Assembly will be targeted by Bill 60, in addition to public bodies themselves.

Section 38 provides that “Section 9 of the Act respecting the National Assembly (chapter A-23.1) is amended by adding the following sentence at the end: ‘In its rules of procedure, the Assembly may include rules to govern the wearing of religious symbols by Members’.”

This provision would have the effect of preventing an elected official who wears a conspicuous religious symbol, such as a kippah, from being able to sit in the National Assembly, if his colleagues decided to make a decision to his effect. It seems difficult to imagine that after having imposed a ban on most of players in Quebec, that members of the National Assembly would make an exception for one of their colleagues.

This provision particularly resonates in the Jewish community since it reminds us of a time when all Jews were prohibited from the Salon bleu (Blue Hall at the Quebec National Assembly) that prevented Ezekiel Hart from taking a seat in the Assembly and from exercising his rights as an elected official. It is precisely this discrimination that led the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada to adopt a law granting political rights to all Jews in 1832. Through its parliament, Quebec was the first territory in the British Empire to enact such a law, more than a quarter of a century before England.

Prohibiting an observant Jew from sitting in the National Assembly would violate the legislative heritage of the institution, without even getting into the issues concerning rights guaranteed by the Quebec and Canadian Charters. 32

Section 22 of the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms states that “every person legally capable and qualified has the right to be a candidate and to vote at an election.” Therefore, section 38 of Bill 60 not only violates the fundamental freedom of religion, but the aforementioned right of Section 22 as well. i) Hierarchy of rights

It would seem from the analysis of Bill 60 that all the proposed amendments to the Charter of human rights and freedoms have the effect of creating a hierarchy of rights. Making such changes to the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms would establish a precedent allowing collective rights to take priority over individual rights, which would weaken the value of the fundamental freedoms granted to individuals.

Section 41 of Bill 60, which would amend section 9.1 of the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms sets out the following:

"Section 9.1 of the Charter is amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph: "In exercising those freedoms and rights, a person shall also maintain a proper regard for the values of equality between women and men and the primacy of the French language, as well as the separation of religions and State and the religious neutrality and secular nature of the State, while making allowance for the emblematic and toponymic elements of Quebec’s cultural heritage that testify to its history."

The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms recognizes the rights and freedoms of everyone.22 In accordance with international law, it is a coherent set of universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated rights and freedoms.23

22 Comments on the government policy paper : Parce que nos valeurs, on y croit… (2013), Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, p.3 23 Déclaration et programme d’action de Vienne, Rés. 48/141, Doc. Off. A.G. N.U., 48e sess. Doc. N.U. A/CONF. 157/23 (1993), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm. 33

Rights and freedoms granted have an equal value, according to law and the Constitution. As the Human Rights Commission stated "The courts have developed ways of respecting each person’s rights even in situations where there may be a conflict between these rights. They take the actual circumstances of each situation into account so that solutions can be found which are respectful of everyone’s rights and which are consistent with the principles outlined in the Charter.”24

Bill 60 not only disrupts this balance, but also grants the government the power to interfere and give precedence to political values to which it adheres, to the detriment of individual fundamental rights.

In a democratic society, the recognition of individual rights protects citizens against any attempts by the democratic majority to impose an arbitrary power.

The issue here is not to discuss the validity or the legitimacy of the values set out in the bill but rather to demonstrate the government's interference with the balance between collective rights and individual fundamental freedoms.

Furthermore, the bill proposes a dangerous hierarchisation of rights while legislation already protects the equality between men and women, the primacy of French language and state neutrality, thereby creating a legislative redundancy.

In flagrant violation of established jurisprudence and the Quebec legal tradition, on which the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is built upon, Bill 60 creates a new legal system that gives an inferior ranking to individual rights and freedoms. The government, acting for the collectivity, will have the ability to arbitrarily impose its political views without any obligation to respect individual fundamental freedoms.

24 Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, Mémoire à la Commission des affaires sociales de l’Assemblée nationale, Projet de loi n° 63, Loi modifiant la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, February 2008, [on line]. http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/Publications/pl63_modification_preambule_Charte.pdf, p. 10.

Judicial disorder will certainly follow this infringement of fundamental freedoms due to imprecision and the lack of clarity regarding the provisions of the bill, as well as the absence of parameters which would offer legal certainty to the individual who may have his or her fundamental rights violated.



Bill 60 raises many concerns within the Jewish community due to the legal uncertainty and ambivalences in the proposed law. Additionally, this bill offers no constitutional guarantee, violates fundamental freedoms, such as those guaranteed by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, those which are the foundations of any democratic law-governed State, and the civil and political rights recognized by the international covenants to which Quebec is bound.

Bill 60 claims in its explanatory notes to provide a legal framework for reasonable accommodation requests and, in order to ensure religious neutrality of the State, prohibits conspicuous religious symbols. Far from fostering social cohesion, this bill violates the fundamental principles inherent in any state based on the rule of law, by usurping the independence of the judiciary, by creating a vague notion of secularism with rather undefined parameters, by giving discretionary and arbitrary powers to employees of the state, and by violating fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of religion.

Religious neutrality of the State guarantees that religious minorities will not have their rights threatened - it does not exist to prevent everyone from expressing their faith. The State must provide a framework that enables all its citizens to enjoy the rights and freedoms granted to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights (section 18):

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in 35 community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance"25

For all of the above reasons, Bill 60 must be withdrawn and at the very least rejected by a vote in the Quebec National Assembly.

Should the bill be passed into law, the Jewish community will not hesitate to use all available legal recourses to repeal it.

25 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 36

5. Conclusion: The Quebec that we envision

Quebec's Jewish community not only shares the values of mainstream society, it embodies them to the same extent. If we understand Quebec values to mean humanism, the Judeo-Christian ethic, European enlightenment, social progress and the foundation of modernity, we as Jews can include ourselves among the builders, carriers and heirs of western civilization on which the values of modern Quebec are based.

It was in the XVIIIth century that the Jews initiated their own Quiet Revolution. During the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, Jews began a movement of the secularization of Jewish identity, known as the Haskalah, which advocated for the adopting of secular education and enlightenment values, and ultimately led to the creation of the Jewish national movement known as Zionism. It is no coincidence that our brothers and sisters would inscribe the equality between the sexes in the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel in 1948, the fundamental law of the Jewish State.

It is not wrong to maintain that in an era where Quebec society was still largely dominated by the conservative views of the Church, Quebec Jews were included among the precursors of progressive thinkers. For example, we can think of our contribution to the modern union movement and to women's empowerment. It is no coincidence that Éva Circé-Côté, a key player in Quebec’s progressive and feminist movements, regularly published her columns in the Jewish community newspaper and recognized that Jews "pushed the wheels of progress, often stronger than others"26 and that "by temperament they are in favour of progress and tomorrow's ideas"27.

Despite modernity being central to the Jewish identity and Jews having played a valuable role in the creation of modern western society as we know it today, the current debate on

26 Julien Saint-Michel (pseudonym of Éva Circé-Côté), "Notre fête nationale," Le Monde ouvrier, June 25 1927. 27 Julien Saint-Michel (pseudonym of Éva Circé-Côté), "Le ‘fair play’ britannique," Le Monde ouvrier, April April 13 1930. 37 secularism and Quebec values would suggest that Quebec Jews need to be reminded of modern society values.

We, as Jews, identify ourselves with the Quebec values of solidarity and social progress, with equality between men and women, with pluralism, with liberal and modern democracy, not only because we are Quebecers, but because these values are also central to our Jewish identity. In other words, the Quebec that resulted from the Quiet Revolution is precisely the type of society that we aspire for as Quebec Jews.

At the same time, we recognize Quebec's religious and cultural heritage as the main factors that have shaped our society. This heritage has not only influenced and built the collective identity of the majority, but it has also forged the environment in which the Jewish community and its institutions have developed and grown. The Jewish community, by its centuries-old presence, insists on the respect of its religious heritage, which forms an integral part of Quebec's story.

We are in favour of a Quebec that is pluralist and respects the diversity of its population, and where the majority culture nonetheless forms the basic core of a common culture. We also believe that Quebec has succeeded in an exemplary manner to find the right balance between the cultural references of the majority and a pluralism that gives minorities the ability to express their distinctive characteristics while respecting French-Canadian history and tradition. We believe that the policy of cultural convergence adopted in 1981 by the government of René Lévesque should continue to guide Quebec integration policies.

Now, the “Charter of Quebec Values” threatens to break this precious equilibrium achieved by the Quiet Revolution by imposing an artificially homogeneous framework on Quebec national identity to the detriment of the dynamism of Quebec society. We deplore that the spirit of this Bill results from a will to reassert a notion of Quebec identity exclusively based on the majority’s ethno-cultural characteristics. The “Charter of Quebec Values” represents a radical break from the Quebec model of integration that has 38 the objectives of: "ensuring the development of cultural communities and tha their unique characteristics are maintained, [of] raising awareness in French-speaking Quebecers of cultural communities' contribution to our common heritage, and finally [of] fostering the integration of cultural communities in Quebec society and especially in the sectors in which they have been under-represented, particularly in the public sector."28

In addition, we support a model of secularism that is unique to Quebec, that is to say, flexible secularism that corresponds to Quebec’s quiet emancipation from the authority of the Church, rather than the importation of France’s uncompromising model, which resulted from its difficult, and at times violent, separation of the State and the Church.

Quebec must consider its history, its society that is shaped by the majority community, and the legitimate needs inherent in its diversity. The State must not promote any religion and the public sphere must, in principle, be neutral, unless a particular symbol is of exceptional patrimonial significance or there is a well-established consensus on the symbol (in the case of a Christmas tree for example). In short, we hope for a neutral State and a pluralistic society.

We do not see the need to get rid of all religious symbols. The historical and cultural value of some symbols and their importance must be considered as part of our heritage. For example, the cross on Mont-Royal is more than just a religious symbol; it tells the story of Quebec.

The prohibition of the wearing of religious symbols for employees in the public and parapublic function, except for those that cover the face –– is never justified. It would exclude many Quebecers from public service, without at all reinforcing the secular nature of our institutions. The role of the State is to unify its citizens, not divide them. The government has not demonstrated that the secular nature of public institutions in Quebec is in jeopardy. The religious neutrality of public institutions lies not in the clothes of its

28 Autant de façons d'être Québécois, Plan d'action du gouvernement du Québec à l'intention des communautés culturelles, Québec, ministère des Communautés culturelles et de l'Immigration, 1981 39 employees, but rather in the equal and non-discriminatory application of rules and laws. The wearing of a kippah or a Star of David is a matter of personal choice, which in no way compromises impartiality nor neutrality.

With respect to reasonable accommodation, a distinction must be made between public policy and private agreements. We do not see the need to amend any law, including the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Amicable agreements between people or institutions can provide for mutually acceptable accommodation, as long as they do not contravene the law. Such agreements, as well as collective agreements, can allow for religious holidays to be days off, for example. If conflicts arise, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provides us with appropriate guidelines to resolve such issues.

Reasonable accommodation is perceived as the majority having to make all the compromises, while the minorities do not. This is an erroneous perception and is categorically false as far as the Jewish community is concerned.

The Quebec social model, of inclusiveness and tolerance, respectful of the history of the majority and of the diversity of its population, has spared Quebec the social tensions and fragmentation that other western societies have experienced. By importing to Quebec a model of secularism that is foreign to Quebec history, we run the risk of importing with it social conflicts that have, until now, been absent in Quebec. Almost half a century after the Quiet Revolution, our Quebec has gained all the maturity and intelligence needed to meet the challenges of immigration without altogether doing away with the spirit of generosity and openness that characterize it.