For all the talk about a large consensus in Quebec behind Premier François Legault’s bid to ban the wearing of religious symbols for some public employees, Montreal’s political class is not buying his government’s controversial Bill 21.

That will not stop the Coalition Avenir Québec government from passing restrictive measures that would impose a secular dress code on all future teachers, police officers and other public service workers in so-called positions of authority.

But it does undermine the premier’s rationale that he is addressing a situation that justifies overriding both the Quebec and Canadian charters of rights to achieve what he describes as a pressing collective goal.

Given its diversity, Montreal is where Bill 21 will have the most impact. The province’s metropolis is also at the heart of an expanding opposition movement to the proposed provincial policy.

That movement already includes school boards that would, under the bill, have to turn down applicants for teaching positions who would not abide by a secular dress code. The English Montreal School Board has warned it will not implement the law, paving the way for a frontal confrontation with the province.

The union that represents public school teachers is also opposed to the measures. as is Montreal’s municipal council, with Mayor Valérie Plante and her opposition vis-à-vis Lionel Perez leading the charge.

Read more:

Quebec bill bans religious symbols for public workers, uses notwithstanding clause

The cruelty behind Quebec’s hat war

Groups say Quebec bill on religious symbols violates minority rights

Plante has called on the Quebec government to offer Montreal a regime that reflects its diversity. That call earned her threats and invectives on social media, in some cases laced with anti-Muslim rhetoric.

On the weekend, Québec Solidaire — the province’s left-wing party — reversed its support for a limited ban on the wearing of religious symbols by workers in a position of authority to join the provincial Liberals in opposition to the imposition of restrictions.

The shift leaves only two of Montreal’s 27 MNAs — the duo elected under the CAQ banner last fall — in favour of the bill.

The change in QS’s stance could make the schism between the two competing provincial sovereigntist parties permanent.

When it comes to state-imposed securalism, the Parti Québecois would have gone further than Legault has. On this defining issue, there is no common ground between the two political factions of the sovereignty movement.

The repositioning of Quebec Solidaire could also make it harder for the Bloc Québécois to rally sovereigntists to its cause in this fall’s federal election.

BQ Leader Yves-François Blanchet has pledged to defend Legault’s policies in the House of Commons. Since the introduction of Bill 21 on Thursday, he has been arguing that the main federalist parties are meddling in Quebec’s affairs by disapproving of the bill.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

With two of the four parties represented in the National Assembly now essentially on the same page, the BQ charge that the federal leaders are trying to impose the rest of Canada’s vision of multiculturalism on the province is harder to sustain.

At this juncture, there is little light shining between Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives and Jagmeet Singh’s NDP on Bill 21.

Trudeau was more forceful in his denunciation of the bill than his opposition rivals, in part because he has less cause to fear internal dissent on the issue. Both Scheer and Singh — even as they denounce Legault’s policy — have to guard against one or more dissidents from their Quebec caucuses breaking ranks.

As he takes issue with the premier’s decision to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Scheer, in particular, is walking on eggs. Only a few months ago, his ally in Ontario, Premier Doug Ford, was threatening to go down the same path to have his way with Toronto’s city council.

For all the forcefulness of Trudeau’s reaction, there has so far been no indication that he is considering turning to some of the constitutional powers vested in the federal government to overturn the Quebec law.

There is a debate as to whether federal government could overturn the law using its power of disallowance, which has not been invoked in 1943. But beyond constitutional complexities, a move by Trudeau to overrule the will of the National Assembly would shift the debate from the full exercise of religious freedoms to Quebec’s jealously guarded provincial autonomy.

In any event, the decision as to whether to intervene is one Trudeau may not have to take.

Any federal move to block the implementation of Bill 21 would have to come after its passage into law, which will not happen until late June at the earliest.

By then Parliament will have adjourned, and will not sit again — absent some unforeseen emergency — until after the federal election.

Short of a pre-election declaration of war on Bill 21 by Trudeau, this ball will land in the court of the next Parliament and whoever gets to lead it.

Chantal Hébert is a columnist based in Ottawa covering politics. Follow her on Twitter: @ChantalHbert

Read more about: